In case anyone thinks that "all beekeepers who treat treat responsibly", I'd suggest reading this....would you want to sell honey from these operations under your label?
Did anyone say you had your science wrong? I don't recall anybody saying that, it's your extrapolations.
To say your extrapolations did not go beyond the scope of the article is nonsense, it is quite clear what your end game is.
Even your pedantic argument about cheesemaking terminology showed 1 how wound up you are over the whole thing, 2 that you are happy to go WAY off track, and 3 you think you are an expert on EVERYTHING. I can quite imagine you walking into a cheese factory and telling them they are doing it all wrong and even the words they use are wrong. When they laugh, you would pull out your laptop and produce 100 google references to prove it. If your assumed expert status on cheese is as sound as your assumed expert status on bees, well, I got to wonder just how good your bees do.
What you are trying to assert (in a convoluted way) is that honey from untreated hives has been made differently than honey from treated hives. Where's the proof? All the argument in the world, is not proof. A study showing it would be close enough for most though.
And heck, we're not even saying it's not the case. We're saying it is unproven, and may or may not be the case. I'm amazed you have spent so much time arguing that. I too also have to withdraw my offer of financial assistance. Money on a research project run by someone with such a blatantly obvious bias, would be a waste.
Just an FYI: the Brevard county fipronil bee kill was an intentional sabotage of this keepers bees. Someone poisoned his feed barrel that was in the back of his truck while he was out of town.
a woman walks up to a honey stand run by a local beekeeper at the farmer's market. the beekeeper has a little sign on a stand, that gives a little explanation about his bee operation and describes what pure raw honey is.
after reading the little sign, the woman asks, "do you use any chemicals on your bees? i have heard that it is better to buy honey made by bees that have not been exposed to chemicals."
the man smiles and replies, "yes ma'am, there is a lot of talk these days about chemicals in honey, and there are some beekeepers that make it a point not to use any on their bees.
but i am sure that you have probably also heard that the bees are having a difficult time in recent years because of new diseases and pests, and that many of the bees are dying.
one of the most common reasons for the bees dying is because their box gets infested with little mites, which are actually little ticks. these ticks attach themselves to the bees and suck their blood, just like big ticks do to people. there can be hundreds, even thousands of these little ticks in one box. what is even worse, is that these little ticks carry very bad germs which they infect the bees with. these germs are passed around and sometimes the whole box of bees becomes sick.
we don't want your honey coming from a box of sick bees, so we believe that it is better to not let the bees get sick. to keep the bees from getting sick, it is sometimes necessary to help them by getting rid of the ticks. this can be done simply by using things that are naturally found in honey, and if done properly, the honey is not affected in any bad way at all.
we believe that it is wrong just to let the bees get sick and die, and we sure don't want your honey coming from sick bees, so yes ma'am, we do sometimes have to help the bees with these ticks. we do so in a very responsible way, and you can be sure that your honey is very clean and pure."
the woman replies, "thank you so much for taking the time to explain all that. i really had no idea so much was involved. i'll take three quarts please."
journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives
I'd like to take the time to reply to this, as you have obviously taken some time to read and understand the study in question.....that alone is basis for a productive discussion. I haven’t quoted everything you said in your last post…but I did try not to cut anything out that had substantive meaning to the discussion. If I missed something that you think is important, please let me know.
...again, "unproven and untested". It's also important to define what a "detrimental effect" on honey would be. Many would claim that 5% (or 30%) feed in honey isn't detrimental...heck, they might be eating it along side fake pancake syrup.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.
I'm only aware of the Mattila study, and I haven't read it closely...but lack of a negative (especially when limited resources have been spent on the issue) hardly equates a positive (or the other way around...not sure which way I should phrase that in this case)….but I’ve never made any CCD claims.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?
You are close there...but there was no need to "prove" that non-target species are affected....it is a given, and it is given in the first sentence of the abstract. There is also no need to "prove" that antibiotic resistance is one of the effects.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. “
What the study showed was that the effect includes the accumulation of resistance genes that occur in many populations (not just AFB, but also humans and farm animals)...note I did not say “originate in”.
Thus, long-term antibiotic treatment has caused the bee gut microbiota to accumulate resistance genes, drawn from a widespread pool of highly mobile loci characterized from pathogens and agricultural sites.hmmmm, but you said, "and provide a path for the intended pathogen to develop resistance to the antibiotic used".....but there is nothing here about the path that AFB [the intended pathogen] used to secure antibiotic resistance...in fact, they state clearly that they don't know if the resistant genes started in AFB [via mutation or selection], or transferred to AFB from some other bee gut microbe, human, or farm animal [microbes]Then I went on to say: “Specifically AFB resistance to tetracycline”
I guess it is okay for you to misquote and “clarify”!
“Moran notes that beekeepers have long used oxytetracycline to control the bacterium that causes foulbrood, but the pathogen eventually acquired resistance to tetracycline itself. Of the foulbrood pathogens Melissococcus pluton and Paenibacillus larvae, Moran says, “They carry tetL, which is one of the eight resistance genes we found. It’s possible that the gene was transferred either from the gut bacteria to the pathogen or from the pathogen to the gut bacteria.””
...and what is the "path"? What direction does it go in? Is "jumping genes" without describing where they jump from and to describe a path? I'm not so sure it does....certainly the word "can" gets in the way of assuming they determined the path, no?For this study, what are the nontarget microbes? Gut microbes. What is the pathogen? AFBFrom 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.”
...but they clearly decline to state that the genes originated in AFB, or if they transferred to AFB...these communities _may_ transfer genes to pathogens...but the pathogens can also transfer these genes to the rest of the community.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?
Well, according to the paper, “In this paper, we investigate antibiotic resistance in the honeybee gut microbiota using a variety of functional and sequence-based assays on bees from colonies in the United States and from countries in which antibiotics have not been used in beekeeping. We report an accumulation of resistance genes specifically in the gut microbiota of honeybees within the United States, where oxytetracycline has been used in beekeeping.”Hmmm, what was the reason for the study?
Check your facts…the study claims the bees from Arizona had not been exposed to tetracycline in the past 25 years…the Utah bees were only qualified as being, “…and samples from long-established feral colonies in Utah, also expected to have no recent exposure.” I’m not getting on your case about this, but I think it’s worth clarifying. You will see D. Lusby thanked in the paper, and I know from talking to the researcher that those are her bees.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.
I’m not sure why you think this is insignificant. There are two factors here…one is the number of loci (the number of “methods” that the bacteria resists antibiotics) and the copy number (the frequency that these genes are present). These are not theoretical resistance genes, they are already known protein sequences that confer antibiotic resistance. If they came at no cost to the community, they would not dissipate with time (as they appear to). The copy rate can be seen by looking at the bottom figure on the chart I posted.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?
If this were a boxing video game, “loci” would be the number of different punches you can use, and “copy rate” would be how many of these punches you can throw in a minute. When the loci number is high, you are agile and adaptable….when your copy rate is high, you are throwing a lot of punches. The exposure to antibiotics more than doubled the number of loci, and increased the copy rate by what, 20X, more? This is not a small effect.
This is a good point, and certainly I make an assumption that hard selecting individuals in a microbial community for antibiotic resistance does not result in the same diversity of that population. But this is not just based on assumption: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.
First, from the study, “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.”
Secondly, From Gut Microbes: Volume 4, Issue 1 January/February 2013
Keywords: Gilliamella, Snodgrassella, gut microbiome, insects, pectin, symbionts
Authors: Philipp Engel and Nancy A. Moran
"...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."
It would be hard (even if one were trying) to select from a diverse population and have the resulting population maintain that diversity. It would be rather unbelievable that exposure to antibiotics wouldn’t reduce the diversity of the population.
What I read is that the first time anyone has looked at anything relating to the microbes in treated vs untreated bees that they found a significant difference exactly where they expected to find it. Antibiotic resistance _is_ metabolically expensive, and the data here supports that point.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.
I’m not sure that is a correct assessment, but I didn’t want to leave your comment out of my reply. The study looked specifically _for_ known antibiotic resistance genes, and found them. The real significance, I think, is that clearly the resistant versions are less fit than the non-resistant versions when antibiotics are not used. I think that is significant.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.
The question I asked here was, do YOU think that changing the nature of these “subpopulations” has no effect on the bee. I have no “proof” that it does, but then again, no one has ever looked. Is there any research out there that looks at what happens when you discontinue routine antibiotic use (besides AFB blooming).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?
Nothing would make me happier than to discuss the Seeley study with you…it would be productive.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.
Barry...After reading through the 406 responses on this thread, spread over 21 pages, can Beesource go ahead and present me with my PHD in Small Cell Beekeeping now, or do I have to keep reading?
As I commented to Oldtimer awhile ago we all need to pay close attention as there might be a test at the end of all this. Barry must have the patience of Job and I commend him.
"Tradition becomes our security, and when the mind is secure it is in decay".....Krishnamurti
errrr, what knowledge of fermentation have you displayed?...and you claim to be a professional. Here's an interesting story...once upon a time, on a fourm (might have even been beesource), I claimed that fermentation was the result of microbial activity. When someone called me on it, I looked it up, and lo and behold...they were correct....fermentation is an enzymatic process regardless of the source of the enzymes or if there are microbes involved. I wasn't as mistaken as you (I knew there was bacterial, fungal, and yeast fermentation), but i was mistaken. I thanked the person who corrected my inaccurate statement, and I never made the same mistake again. hmmmmmI can quite imagine you walking into a cheese factory and telling them they are doing it all wrong and even the words they use are wrong.
Thank you for "clarifying"my statements again...but, no thank you. Feel free to quote me though and we can discuss it.What you are trying to assert (in a convoluted way) is that honey from untreated hives has been made differently than honey from treated hives.
I have spent time reviewing the research on gut microbes and a bit about how we think honey is produced...and the best information is that they are related, that the gut microbes have some influence on the production of honey. If you want to say I've claimed any more than that....again, quote me. I don't think that is too much to ask.And heck, we're not even saying it's not the case. We're saying it is unproven, and may or may not be the case. I'm amazed you have spent so much time arguing that.
EDIT - Wrote this post before I saw your reply to mine, Deknow.
However I've pulled up the above 3 quotes, to try and show what's wrong with the way you argue, why this thread has gone the way it has, and why pretty much every thread goes the same way, if you join it.
You have definately been trying to get the message across that the use of antibiotics changes the composition and nature of BEES.
In response, Jbshearse, quite reasonably, asked for proof, or if there is any way you could show this.
Now here comes the problem with the way you argue and the reason none of your threads go anywhere. Instead of giving a straight answer, you respond to the question, with another QUESTION. I see this theme being repeated over and over.
The readers of this thread are not stupid. Trying to beguile people, when you have no proof of something, with insinuations and questions, that lead a particular way but never prove anything, will mislead maybe 1/2 the readers, as has happened in this thread. But the other 1/2, see straight through it. You then get people questioning you, and as you've done in this thread, respond by trying to bamboozle them with red herrings, discredit them or try to catch them out on something possibly non related, to make them look silly. Doesn't prove anything, and doesn't get you any friends.
Most threads go the same once you join it, is this why you no longer post on B-Line?
You need to get past your own agendas, if they have no proof, accept that. What you are trying to plug in this thread, has no proof.
Continue arguing with all comers if you wish. But there is no proof for your hypothesis.
I will though, give you 10 points for fessing up. But this is unfortunately countered by all the other crap and general bad behaviour.
I'll repeat. There is no proof for your hypothesis. Continuing to argue it does cast doubt on the validity of all the other stuff you argue.
errrr, if you look at the 3 quotes you posted (only two of them were mine), you claim,
Now, here's the rub....put things in context."You have definately been trying to get the message across that the use of antibiotics changes the composition and nature of BEES.
In response, Jbshearse, quite reasonably, asked for proof, or if there is any way you could show this.
Now here comes the problem with the way you argue and the reason none of your threads go anywhere. Instead of giving a straight answer, you respond to the question, with another QUESTION. I see this theme being repeated over and over. "
In response the the STATEMENT by jbshearse:
"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. "
I asked a question...a reasonable one.
"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."
In response to my QUESTION, jbshearse didn't answer it...he/she (not making any transgender statements..I just don't know your gender) responded to my legitimate QUESTION with a QUESTION.
"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?"
...at which point I reitterated my original, legitimate QUESTION
"The question I asked here was, do YOU think that changing the nature of these “subpopulations” has no effect on the bee. I have no “proof” that it does, but then again, no one has ever looked. Is there any research out there that looks at what happens when you discontinue routine antibiotic use (besides AFB blooming).."
Well, I haven't been paying attention to such things...but I see your point....except that I'm not the one that ANSWERED A QUESTION WITH A QUESTION in your example. It seems I am the "victim" of the "crime" you are pointing out, not the perpetrator.Instead of giving a straight answer, you respond to the question, with another QUESTION. I see this theme being repeated over and over.
I'm confused by this whole post....
you replied (in part) with: "Fermentation (which implies by bacteria)..."
I'm not sure how to interpret that other than "fermentation implies by bacteria"...if you meant something else, please clarify what you meant...how could I get anything else from that statement? If I misunderstood, please explain what the heck you meant, and how I was supposed to understand what you meant based on what you said?
Still, I don't understand....the story I related about being corrected happened years ago. The only fessing up I did was for a mistake (a wrong statement made out of ignorance) years ago. I still have no idea why you said that fermentation implied bacteria. Is it because the Moran study is only looking at bacteria? If so, how does that imply that yeasts and fungi aren't involved in the fermentation?I will though, give you 10 points for fessing up. But this is unfortunately countered by all the other crap and general bad behaviour.
If you want to see it that way.
As I said, I just don't have the time, or see the value for me, in going through the whole thing. The small example I used may be incomplete enough for you to pick some holes in it. In the end, that will be your problem, not mine.
You have consistently misrepresented what I have said. I legitimately asked for some quotes to back up the personal attacks....and when you finally put mind to actually quote me, it backfired on you because you misrepresented what I have said....consistently. There is nothing incomplete here except your analysis.
OK, Yet again, I'll take the bait, as yet again you are using your favorite technique of trying to make someone look silly (me in this case).
To nobody that drinks beer does fermentation imply bacteria.