small cell foundation

[Adam Foster Collins]

Practice non-intervention beekeeping?

That's a contradiction in terms - but would amount to the most minimal I suppose. If one didn't intervene - then they'd basically just leave the bees alone to do their thing in the wild.

Squarepeg said "As minimal as is practical?" - That's just it, isn't it? Acebird's "non-intervention" would be too minimal to call it beekeeping, and on the other side of the spectrum, we add so much, and manipulate so much of the bee's environment (food, housing, defense against pests and disease, genetics, etc etc) That we don't know what's been a benefit and what's been a part of the problem.

So we try to find that "practical" breaking point. And that seems to be a different place for everyone.

Adam

[jim lyon]

Deknow - did I miss your PM on price and quantity of treatment free honey you could purchase from me? With you numbers I could calculate if the extra effort of treatment free is economical. Another gentleman that approached me about [purchasing TF honey has yet to put his money where his mouth is.

How did Mr. Lyon's honey taste(I bet good)? There is more to honey quality than what is not put in it.


Crazy forgettable Roland

Raising honey is like raising queens, everyone is positive that there's is the best. I guess I am no exception. Perhaps there is something different about the honey we raise because the ancestors of the bees producing it were exposed to something the hive was treated with months earlier but it dosent strike me as terribly likely and if it was surely someone would have posted a link proving that honey fron treatment free hives is in some way different. Personally I would prefer to just dumb this discussion down a bit to the basics of what interests people in the treatment free forum. If you are here because of concern about the altering of microbial populations in the bee gut because of what you are putting in the hive than Deans the guy you want to be listening to, what he says on this subject is no doubt true, how much of a threat it is to our industry is no doubt an open ended argument though. If you got interested in treatment free beekeeping because you want to insure that the honey you are consuming or selling is as free from contaminants as possible then I am simply making the point that there may be any number of ways to achieve that goal. Let's not forget that Varroa is the nastiest most tenacious challenge that Apis mellifera has ever had to contend with. I don't know what chemical changes varroa may cause in a hive but make no mistake about it, they are responsible for the demise of countless hives. One need never have to apologize for choosing to fight them. If you formulated your opinion of mite control based on how things were done 15 to 20 years ago you might consider looking at some of today's options and methods for IPM. The times they are a changin.

[Oldtimer]

Yes, 'case anyone was wondering, I had no issues with what I read of the many studies Dean has linked, provided they are interpreted strictly as the writer intended. No doubt some of them are less than perfect although I didn't see that, but also didn't go looking for it.

They prove what they prove and show what they show. Further extropolations and assumptions others have based on these studies though, could have some of the authors spinning.

[Oldtimer]

Dean, to get back to business, please see my post #354. You never responded.

[d.frizzell]

Squarepeg, I can understand that, especially since you come across as a very analytical/science based person. You want something you can point at that is in black and white. Personally I find life is rarely that simple. To me, scientific studies are often biased toward what the researcher is trying to prove and many things worthy of investigation aren't investigated because there is no profit or not enough profit in it.

To me, sometimes we have to accept there are things better not meddled with and things that benefit more if MAN doesn't intervene. I can't prove it, but I accept it.

And yes, you are probably correct, if we could unlock it we could capitalize on it. Maybe engineer it to be better but we must remember that nature has a balance and with every gain there is a commensurate loss.

Colleen,
I just have to say "EXCELLENT POST" !!!
Donna
46N

[Oldtimer]

Dunno. If it was true we wouldn't be keeping bees would we?

[squarepeg]

Let's not forget that Varroa is the nastiest most tenacious challenge that Apis mellifera has ever had to contend with. I don't know what chemical changes varroa may cause in a hive but make no mistake about it, they are responsible for the demise of countless hives. One need never have to apologize for choosing to fight them. If you formulated your opinion of mite control based on how things were done 15 to 20 years ago you might consider looking at some of today's options and methods for IPM. The times they are a changin.

jim, very good point. i don't think anyone has brought up the point so far as to what effect the pathogens that are vectored into the hive by varroa have on the 'normal' microflora in the hive.

short of collapse, there very well could be effects to the microflora on a smaller scale that are as bad or worse as the result of careful ipm practices. (back to the risk/benefit ratios of doing or not doing....)

the bees appear to be evolving, so must we.

[deknow]

They prove what they prove and show what they show. Further extropolations and assumptions others have based on these studies though, could have some of the authors spinning.

1. Without being specific about what what "further extrapolations and assumptions" are, it is difficult to assign any meaning to your statement....except some vague assumption that I (or others) have been misleading in analysis of the studies...I ask that you be specific.

2. WRT the Moran study, I ran my summary past the PI of the study asking if I had misstated or overstated anything....the draft I sent was a rough draft that was slightly revised from what I had posted here (_very slightly_ mostly grammar edits), and the response was that I got the science correct. I've revised this version a bit and turned it into an article on our website.

I'm not sure how many more checks and balances are required before one can accept my summary/interpretation...I can't do much more than do the best job I can and ask the author on my end...unless someone else wants to read the study and try to pick out something specific that "might have some of the authors spinning", even if the authors agree with what I've said?

deknow

[deknow]

Sorry Oldtimer...I'm busy trying to put your expert advice into practice. What bacteria do you suggest I culture my wine, beer, and bread with?

deknow

[Barry]

Sounds like bee gut is the preferred choice.

[jbeshearse]

The discussions on this thread surrounding the study titled “Long-Term Exposure to Antibiotics Has Caused Accumulation of Resistance Determinants in the Gut Microbiota of Honeybees” have been extrapolated beyond anything reasonable and at this point are simply laughable.

First and for-most, this study is not about the effects of antibiotics on bees, it is about ancillary effects on subpopulations that inhabit bees. The purpose of the study was to prove that antibiotic treatments affect more than the target species and provide a path for the intended pathogen to develop resistance to the antibiotic used. In summary, it set out to discover and prove how antibiotic resistance is achieved by the target species in some instances, specifically AFB resistance to tetracycline.

Second, it does not say that the “Microbiota” of honeybees has been damaged but that it shows resistance determinates. It actually indicates that the gut Microbiota in honeybees is tetracycline resistant. This means that continued treatments with tetracycline will have a lessening effect on the microbiota.

In actuality, it says that the combination of microbiota populations within honeybees is essentially the same between those with long term exposure and those without.

This thread is a typical example of taking a study and trying to interpret it to mean something entirely outside of scope and contrary to its findings. Just how far is one willing to reach and obscure in trying to find support for a position?

There are plenty of reasons to be treatment free without descending into ludicrousness. This thread has only lead to lessening personal creditability of some involved. I guess sometimes ego gets in the way. I know that happens to me, so maybe I am just projecting….

Cheers.

[deknow]

The discussions on this thread surrounding the study titled “Long-Term Exposure to Antibiotics Has Caused Accumulation of Resistance Determinants in the Gut Microbiota of Honeybees” have been extrapolated beyond anything reasonable and at this point are simply laughable.

Um...ok...so let's examine your interpretation.

First and for-most, this study is not about the effects of antibiotics on bees, it is about ancillary effects on subpopulations that inhabit bees.

True...just as in humans and farm animals, antibiotics are used to modify the population of resident microbes. Is it your claim that changing the nature and composition of these "subpopulations" does not effect the bees?

The purpose of the study was to prove that antibiotic treatments affect more than the target species and provide a path for the intended pathogen to develop resistance to the antibiotic used. In summary, it set out to discover and prove how antibiotic resistance is achieved by the target species in some instances, specifically AFB resistance to tetracycline.

The above is a gross misreading. "The purpose of this study" had nothing to do with AFB, except to note that AFB and EFB are the reasons behind the prolonged use of antibiotics in beehives. There is no discussion about AFB resistance, except to note that it is one of the reasons for antibiotic use, and that the resistant genes appear to be the same ones as found in the non-target species. This is a study looking at the most common gut microbes of bees, AFB is barely an afterthought, and certainly not what the research is focused on. None of the results, none of the actual lab work included AFB...there were no AFB samples involved at all.

Antibiotic treatment can impact nontarget microbes, enriching the pool of resistance genes available to pathogens and altering community profiles of microbes beneficial to hosts. The gut microbiota of adult honeybees, a distinctive community dominated by eight bacterial species, provides an opportunity to examine evolutionary responses to long-term treatment with a single antibiotic.

...nothing about AFB. No AFB samples were used for anything here.

Second, it does not say that the “Microbiota” of honeybees has been damaged but that it shows resistance determinates. It actually indicates that the gut Microbiota in honeybees is tetracycline resistant. This means that continued treatments with tetracycline will have a lessening effect on the microbiota.

Prolonged exposure to a single broad-spectrum antibiotic imposes strong selective pressure on a microbial community that is expected to result in loss of strain diversity. It is possible that antibiotic perturbation may shift the gut microbiota to an alternative state that is broadly similar but different in critical aspects (4, 23). These shifts could affect host health: in the case of the distinctive gut bacteria of honeybees and bumblebees, metagenomic and experimental studies suggest beneficial roles in neutralization of dietary toxins, nutrition, and in defense against pathogens (13, 18

If you look at the chart (I'll paste it at the bottom of this post), you will see that there are some common antibiotic resistance genes that exist throught the genome...including bees that have never seen antibiotics, and bumble bees (blue and red on the chart...almost all samples in this study have both). This is not surprising, antibiotics exist in nature (but don't make the mistake of thinking that unnatural concentrations of natural substances is natural).

But

If you look at the bees from countries that never used antibiotics, you see that outside of the above mentioned "baseline" antibiotic resistant genes, there is no antibiotic resistance.

In contrast, look at the bees from the U.S. With the exception of Dee's bees and the Utah feral bees, they almost all have _6_ additional antibiotic resistant genes. The samples from Dee's bees and the Utah ferals only have 3 of these additional genes.

It is well understood and accepted that the selection mechanism that leads to this kind of antibiotic resistance also greatly reduces diversity. Some of these bacteria have already been demonstrated to have a diversity of genetic variations within the population AND that that diversity translates into a diversity of function.

Gut Microbes [the name of the journal]
Volume 4, Issue 1 January/February 2013
Authors: Philipp Engel and Nancy A. Moran
From the abstract: "...Gene contents could be linked to different symbiotic functions with the host. Further, we found a high degree of genetic diversity within each of these species. In the case of the gammaproteobacterial species Gilliamella apicola, we could experimentally show a link between genetic variation of isolates and functional differences suggesting that niche partitioning within this species has emerged during evolution with its bee hosts."

The repopulation that happens after the community is exposed to antibiotics results in a loss of the diversity, therefore the loss of specialized "niche partitioning"...kind of like if you go to a restaurant and managers are trying to wait on tables, run the bar, and cook the food. Such a system works better when people performing those functions are specialized for them.

You will also see that, over time, these populations do change. It is clear from the chart that the most recently exposed bees have the highest copy rates of antibiotic resistance...and therefore, when antibioics are removed from the equation, antibiotic resistance is selected _against_. This indicates, rather conclusively, that absent application of antibiotics, that, at least to some extent, antibiotic resistance is selected against.

In actuality, it says that the combination of microbiota populations within honeybees is essentially the same between those with long term exposure and those without.

...from the discussion:

The gut microbiota of honeybees in the United States provides an unusual example of a clearly defined microbial community subjected to a single broad-spectrum antibiotic for a prolonged period (19, 20, 22). These gut bacterial communities have accumulated an abundant and diverse set of tetracycline resistance genes, encompassing eight resistance loci that are found in diverse geographic localities.
.....
In contrast, the gut microbiota of SUI, CZ, and NZ honeybees contain only 2 or 3 resistance loci, each in very low copy number, as was also true for bumblebees caught in the wild. Since antibiotics have not been used in beekeeping in these two European countries or in New Zealand and since bumblebees, as a wild species, are not expected to encounter artificial antibiotic applications, the resistance loci in these samples are likely to be naturally occurring.

..they are "essentially" the same? Really? If that were the case, then the chart would show "essentially" the same thing for all samples...it doesn't.

Prolonged exposure to a single broad-spectrum antibiotic imposes strong selective pressure on a microbial community that is expected to result in loss of strain diversity. It is possible that antibiotic perturbation may shift the gut microbiota to an alternative state that is broadly similar but different in critical aspects (4, 23). These shifts could affect host health: in the case of the distinctive gut bacteria of honeybees and bumblebees, metagenomic and experimental studies suggest beneficial roles in neutralization of dietary toxins, nutrition, and in defense against pathogens (13, 18

F2.large.jpg

[squarepeg]

very well stated and reasonable, thanks jb.

[Riskybizz]

RiskyBizz> I will donate a minimum of $25.00 to any potential sc study that you happen to be involved with in the next 3 years.

Dean:

I must inform you at this time that I am rescinding my original offer of monetary support of any forthcoming sc research conducted by you personally. Originally I found this proposal positive, and had hoped that it would lead to a more comprehensive study of small cell beekeeping. However, in light of this threads current disposition I feel strongly that any contribution directed towards your personally would not be justified. So without hesitation my original post #77 is hereby retracted. Ones modus operandi often becomes clear in such debates. Your flippant, bellicose remarks directed towards me as well as towards others serve no useful purpose other than inflating one’s own ego. In short dean you come across as a verbal bully, and you don’t seem to know when to pull the plug in the interest of the common good. And for the record posts from knowledgeable individuals like Oldtimer, Jim Lyon and many others are quite appealing, while yours seem to continually fester. I certainly mean no disrespect towards you personally, but I am quite hesitant to indulge in much of your cool aid. A professional demeanor tends to go a long ways towards a positive discussion. Jim, congratulations on the test results of your honey. You should be extremely proud of your operation.

[deknow]

At this point, I'm writing for the folks that are reading and generally not posting. If "professional demeanor" is what is missing, I would suggest that things like, false paraphrasing (straw man), quoting out of context, and being unwilling to correct gross factual misstatements by others makes a true discussion impossible.

I've done my best to present what I know and what I've experienced...but over and over I've been told I said something I never did, I've been attacked for spending 2 hours away from the computer, I've been told what is in a study by people that have never done more than read the abstract, I've been instructed that beer and wine are produced with bacteria and not yeast (by a self proclaimed expert) and my statements have been "clarified" by others

I don't want anyone's money without a definitive plan (as I posted at the time...hold off on the donations), and I would never ask anyone to spend money in a way they didn't see fit. It's your money, and you can do what you want with it.

I've been honest, I've checked my facts, and I've been accurate. You are on your own.

deknow

[jim lyon]

Dean: Perhaps this discussion is about much more to you but to myself it has boiled down to a simple question. Does bee gut health in any verifiable way make a difference in the quality or purity of honey produced particularly when said honey is produced months later. If so cite such data. I hope you don't take that personally , it's not meant in such a way, I just think that's what is getting lost in the discussion and it's also probably what many if not most people following this thread really want to hear answered. There is another active thread about oxalic acid. Can you state to those folks that an oxalic application this past fall might affect the quality of their honey next year? Is that a fair example of what you are saying?

[JRG13]

This honey talk and gut flora sparked a question from me.... forage being equal, does honey come out dramatically different from hive to hive? Is that a trait that's selected for, not just quantity of honey produced by a hive but the taste and quality?

[deknow]

[QUOTE=jim lyon;876921Does bee gut health in any verifiable way make a difference in the quality or purity of honey produced particularly when said honey is produced months later. If so cite such data.[/quote]

Jim, I'm not sure how many times I can say that in the history of modern beekeeping, there has been exactly one study that even considered that untreated bees _might_ show some difference in the gut microbes. The question, "is it verifiable" is quite a different question than "has it been verified". Note that no researchers in the USDA/PHD bee scientist world has even considered such a question (even when they are looking for funding for future research). I think it is verifiable....but who is going to pay for the work? The NHB? The USDA? As far as I know, we are the largest "treatment free packer" around....the rest of the "industry", from hobbyist on up is firmly committed to treating and feeding...they will not support research that quantifies a difference between honey from treated/fed and untreated/unfed bees. This is not a conspiracy theory....this is basic economics of funding.

I do hope that you read the Seeley study, and my critique (along with the funding reports I posted). _this_ is the quality of work coming from the best of them...and to say it was lacking is an understatement.

There have been a lot of accusations that our marketing is dishonest....a little food for thought:

1. When you go to the drug store and buy aspirin, there is the Bayer brand, and the store brand at half price. No one has tested them to see what the differences are. No one even makes a claim that they are different (the ingredients are the same)....yet we don't see the marketing of name brand asprin as "dishonest" or "deceptive" or "misleading". There may be a significant difference, or they may have come off the same line on the same day. Is it dishonest for Bayer to sell aspirin?

This is brand marketing....our brand is based around selling honey from bees that are not treated and not fed. Not all honey is equal, and no one thus far has proposed a marketing scheme that would allow one to simply steer customers away from the bad stuff. I can't afford to test, and I don't believe that most tests can detect rice syrup, which is probably the most common "economic sugar adulterant" (meaning that it is added to stretch the amount of "honey" rather than incidental feed getting into the honey). I said earlier, everyone is welcome to market their product how they see fit....personally, if I were you, I'd take my test results (maybe have them done again on my dime so I would "own them"), and shop around for a better price. In our case, I'm not worried that feed or treatments might get into the honey....because the bees are not treated or fed.

2. All kinds of honey is marketed with testing as part of the qualification...isn't it "worse" to imply that something might be in the honey (by testing to make sure _this jar_ doesn't) than to imply that other honey might (likely) be from bees that are treated?

Can you state to those folks that an oxalic application this past fall might affect the quality of their honey next year? Is that a fair example of what you are saying?

sure it is.

deknow

[squarepeg]

'might', being the operative word.

at this point, 'might not' would be just as valid.

'don't know' would be most accurate.

likely to find out? doubtful without proper studies, which don't appear to be forthcoming.

(you have answered my questions posted on the symbionts thread, no need for further clarification)

[jbeshearse]

Um...ok...so let's examine your interpretation.





True...just as in humans and farm animals, antibiotics are used to modify the population of resident microbes. Is it your claim that changing the nature and composition of these "subpopulations" does not effect the bees?

My stance is that it does not necessarily affect the bees and the probabilities are against it doing so. It is unproven and untested. You are reaching and extrapolating beyond the scope. Further, that if it does by some long shot, it still is unlikely to have a detrimental effect on the survivability of the bees or the honey they make. There are studies looking into possibilities that gut microbe mutations contributed to the CCD problem. Can you cite any that have found proof of it, or are you simply waving the flag of possibility?

The above is a gross misreading. "The purpose of this study" had nothing to do with AFB, except to note that AFB and EFB are the reasons behind the prolonged use of antibiotics in beehives. There is no discussion about AFB resistance, except to note that it is one of the reasons for antibiotic use, and that the resistant genes appear to be the same ones as found in the non-target species. This is a study looking at the most common gut microbes of bees, AFB is barely an afterthought, and certainly not what the research is focused on. None of the results, none of the actual lab work included AFB...there were no AFB samples involved at all.

…nothing about AFB. No AFB samples were used for anything here.

You are right, it is a gross misreading, but it is yours not mine. First off I said the purpose of the study was and to quote: “The purpose of the study was to prove that antibiotic treatments affect more than the target species and provide a path for the intended pathogen to develop resistance to the antibiotic used. “

Then I went on to say: “Specifically AFB resistance to tetracycline”

I guess it is okay for you to misquote and “clarify”!

From the abstact “Antibiotic treatment can impact nontarget microbes, enriching the pool of resistance genes available to pathogens and altering community profiles of microbes beneficial to hosts.”

For this study, what are the nontarget microbes? Gut microbes. What is the pathogen? AFB

Also From the study : “The impact of antibiotics on the gut microbiota of animals is a particular concern, since gut communities may act as reservoirs for resistance genes that can be transferred to pathogens (1–3)”

Transferred to pathogens…. Once again what pathogen was being treated for? What was the reason for the study?

From the study: “Since the 1950s, the antibiotic oxytetracycline has been widely applied to colonies of bees in the United States to control larval foulbrood diseases caused by the bacteria Melissococcus pluton and Paenibacillus larvae” EFB & AFB

From the study” Following the emergence of resistance to oxytetracycline in P. larvae in 1996, alternative antibiotics were tested for its control” P. Larvae – once again AFB

Hmmm, what was the reason for the study?

Try reading for content not affirmation.

If you look at the chart (I'll paste it at the bottom of this post), you will see that there are some common antibiotic resistance genes that exist throught the genome...including bees that have never seen antibiotics, and bumble bees (blue and red on the chart...almost all samples in this study have both). This is not surprising, antibiotics exist in nature (but don't make the mistake of thinking that unnatural concentrations of natural substances is natural).

But

If you look at the bees from countries that never used antibiotics, you see that outside of the above mentioned "baseline" antibiotic resistant genes, there is no antibiotic resistance.

In contrast, look at the bees from the U.S. With the exception of Dee's bees and the Utah feral bees, they almost all have _6_ additional antibiotic resistant genes. The samples from Dee's bees and the Utah ferals only have 3 of these additional genes.

Well, I guess you have me there. I will have to suppose that Dee’s bees are the Arizona bees you refer to and that the Utah ferals are the Utah bees referred to. Although I don’t know how they determined that the bees from Utah had not been exposed to tetracycline the past 25 years. But the results bear out that they have not,so I will assume they are correct. But understand these are assumptions on my part.

More importantly though is that yes there are 3 loci in the non-treated populations and 8 in the treated. WOW. 5 extra loci.(yes 8-3 = 5 not 6) How many genes does each gut bacteria have? How many pairs in their DNA? How much of the dna are “waste dna”. Without reference 6 is a meaningless number? Is 5 a significantly statistical number?

It is well understood and accepted that the selection mechanism that leads to this kind of antibiotic resistance also greatly reduces diversity. Some of these bacteria have already been demonstrated to have a diversity of genetic variations within the population AND that that diversity translates into a diversity of function.

The repopulation that happens after the community is exposed to antibiotics results in a loss of the diversity, therefore the loss of specialized "niche partitioning"...kind of like if you go to a restaurant and managers are trying to wait on tables, run the bar, and cook the food. Such a system works better when people performing those functions are specialized for them.

You will also see that, over time, these populations do change. It is clear from the chart that the most recently exposed bees have the highest copy rates of antibiotic resistance...and therefore, when antibioics are removed from the equation, antibiotic resistance is selected _against_. This indicates, rather conclusively, that absent application of antibiotics, that, at least to some extent, antibiotic eesistance is selected against.

...from the discussion:

..they are "essentially" the same? Really? If that were the case, then the chart would show "essentially" the same thing for all samples...it doesn't.

From the study: “The honeybee (Apis mellifera), a highly social insect and important agricultural pollinator, is associated with eight characteristic bacterial species that together comprise over 95% of the gut bacteria in adult worker bees (5–12). “ ….

Nowhere in the study was there any indication that any of these 8 characteristic bacterial species were absent in the treated bees verses the untreated bees. So where is this “loss of diversity? You are reading between the lines to reach a conclusion that is not supported by observation or the study. What I read is that there is a slight difference in the genes of the two. One has some tetracycline resistance and the others do not. Not earth shattering but well expected. Samples are not the complete organism, you know that. Even the gut microbes are essentially the same, much more so for the organism wee know as bees. You have taken a sample of a few genes from an unknown pool of genes in a small bacteria in an evolved larger organism and extrapolated it to indicate a significance that is not there.

True...just as in humans and farm animals, antibiotics are used to modify the population of resident microbes. Is it your claim that changing the nature and composition of these "subpopulations" does not effect the bees

Hmmm…. I have seen no proof of that having occurred in this study. Show me again where the “nature and composition” of these subpopulations has changed in a way that has affected the honeybee? What does that effect look like? Where is the proof?

I am not going to waste a lot of time in further response, I learned long ago there is a large difference in talking at someone and talking to them. All in all, I think this thread needs to return to its original intent, I think that was small cell beekeeping.