Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

32K views 259 replies 37 participants last post by  mike bispham 
#1 ·
I've heard it mentioned more than once before:

"These queens are treatment free. They will thrive without treatments. But if you do treat, you'll destroy the genetics and they'll never be able to be treatment free again."

How true is that?

If a certain strain of bees is genetically pre-dispositioned in some way to be treatment free (either hygienic, VSH, grooming behavior, high tolerance to mite spread viruses, ect.), how would a change in environment over a short period of time affect those genetics? While some treatments can be very harsh, I can't say any of them affect bees on a genetic level. And with the life span of a worker bee being about 4 weeks in the summer time, theoretically if you treat, and let all the bees be replaced, the current work force should still be just as genetically treatment free as the previous work force.

I can see how over a long period of time if you treat that hive, and they replace their queen from new genetics and mate with other hives near by that are treated, you would be allowing weaker genetics to combine into the mix. But that's long term, over a series of years. Not short term, as in within one season.

I'm aware that some will say "well, if they are treatment free, why treat at all?" Often times in treatment free situations, you have high mite counts, or borderline mite counts, where it's a coin flip as to whether or not the hive will be able to overcome the mites on their own or whether they will crash and die. Assuming allowing them to die is not an option, if you were to treat to help reduce the mite loads (and further spread their potentially partially mite resistant genetics) and keep the colony alive, the apiary might be better off for it (if two partially mite resistant stocks breed together, some might have no mite resistance, others might have super mite resistance, and by allowing it to die the year before you loose that possibility).

Thoughts? Experiences?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Also, for the record, I didn't post this in the Treatment Free section for a reason. Since the concept involves using treatments on treatment free genetics, the underlying conversation instills a pre-disposed concept that the beekeeper is willing to, or has, used treatments.

If this was posted (or moved) to the treatment free thread, I think there would be a bunch of responses along the lines of "why would you ever do that" or "I don't know, don't treat so wouldn't know what to tell you."
 
#3 ·
I don't believe the genetics are affected but depending on the treatment residuals will remain in the hive longer than one bee life. Also, there could be an issue with what the treatment does physically to the queen.
 
#4 ·
It's true. For the same reason that you shouldn't be vacinated of take aspirins if you are a generally healthy person. They will change you into a genetic wimp. Now where is that tongue in cheek smiley?

There is the legitimate argument that by keeping less resistant stock alive you water down the whole gene pool. But if you conscientiosly requeen low performing hives with higher performing genetic stock - what advantage would there be to letting a hive die when you could prevent it?

There is also the theory that you irreversibly polute the hive environment when you use some treatments. Which may be true.
 
#34 · (Edited)
Acebird, post 3, got it right

It's true. For the same reason that you shouldn't be vacinated of take aspirins if you are a generally healthy person. They will change you into a genetic wimp.
A citation for that exists?

For instance treating with an anti-biotic will temporarily mask the symptoms of AFB but will make the hive more susceptible to it in the future.
Heard that old chestnut a few times. A citation for it exists?

What you are confused with is a hive treated for AFB with antibiotics, runs the risk of getting it again after treatment, because the antibiotics don't kill the spores. This has nothing to do with the thread topic, can a chemical treatment alter genetics. Straw man argument.
 
#6 ·
I am skeptical here - some bees are better able to survive without treatments - but they still need "help" once in a while. To me treatment free is the goal and I hate seeing bees not make it when I could have done something. Like my Russians - Kim Flottum reported that Russian Bees seemed to require fewer treatments for mites - my test was all or nothing - the bees didn't have a chance to show how far they had progressed. As truly TF bees they hadn't progressed far enough. The old "work in progress" saying applies me thinks.

My understanding of genetics finds the original statement absurd.
 
#7 ·
I think that there is not enough information available to substantiate the statement. While there are accepted mechanisms by which genes can be altered through exposure to some agent, and these genes can be passed to progeny, I am not aware of any study that has been conducted with bees. Sounds like an interesting experiment.

In the end, drawing conclusions based on accepted pieces of scientific knowledge but based on faulty hypotheses or data obtained under varying conditions is pseudoscience. This does not mean that such conclusions always turn out to be incorrect. But, until proven, they are opinion at best.
 
#8 ·
While there are accepted mechanisms by which genes can be altered through exposure to some agent, and these genes can be passed to progeny

But isn't an alteration in genes a very different thing then a reaction in the genome to an external stimulus? For instance genes may react to radiation, but that change in the gene is not some alteration that makes the offspring resistant to radiation. Typically the alteration to the gene is a random change that has nothing to do with stimulus at all other then being caused by the stimulus.

For the most part I think this is a largely misunderstood perception of genetics and even evolution. Genes and species don't "Adapt" because of the stimulus they are exposed to. What happens is that either the altered genes are passed on and provide some benefit in some future environment or the environment changes and allows a certain species that has existing gene set to survive that environment.

In this example the idea that a bee would have some genetic level adaptation in response to treatment would be a fluke at best. It is quite possible that the bee already has a gene set that allows them to adapt to the stimulus of treatment in some way, that I do not know and would be interesting to find out. It is also possible that treatment creates some random genetic alteration that is passed on to the next generation, but highly improbably that that random change would provide any change negative or positive as related to treatment.

~Matt
 
#9 ·
For the most part I think this is a largely misunderstood perception of genetics and even evolution. Genes and species don't "Adapt" because of the stimulus they are exposed to. What happens is that either the altered genes are passed on and provide some benefit in some future environment or the environment changes and allows a certain species that has existing gene set to survive that environment.
That has been found to be not entirely the case - Google epigenetics - environmental factors don't generally change the genome, but they can change gene expression in ways that can be passed along.
 
#26 ·
Come on Solomon. What is changed genetically in the queen when varroa mite treatment is used? If someone is selling queens and saying that their genetics makes them immune or resistant to varroa do they include some sort of money back garuntee?
 
#13 ·
>"These queens are treatment free. They will thrive without treatments. But if you do treat, you'll destroy the genetics and they'll never be able to be treatment free again."

The statement makes it sound like they are claiming that treating with some unspecified treatment (or maybe all unspecified treatments) will make some genetic change in the queen. I don't know the context but that's what it sounds like out of context. Obviously that's not true.

On the other hand. Recent studies on microbes in bees have shown that after using antibiotics and other things the disrupt the microbes the microbes do not recover for several years at least.

http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/6/e00377-12.full
 
#15 ·
environmental factors don't generally change the genome, but they can change gene expression in ways that can be passed along.

Yes, that is largely what I'm saying. The environment might change and this may trigger a certain trait or expressing. However that gene or gene expression was pre existing, it did not appear expressly because of the change in environment. It's more akin to discovering a previously unknown, but already existing, talent or ability. It certainly makes things a bit more grey but does not generally change the line of thinking.

If bees start laying purple eggs because they are exposed to a certain treatment it's not because their DNA was altered. It will be because they already had this trait and the treatment triggered it in some fashion.

OTOH I won't pretend to be a geneticist, it's way above my pay grade :)

In short what I'm saying is that a single treatment to a hive will not alter that hives DNA rendering it unable to be hygienic. It could trigger a sequence of events that might cause some sort of gene expression change that would make the offspring less hygienic if for some reason that trait was pre existing in the code already. By the same token however all you would have to do is turn that trait back off and you would have the same characteristics as the pre treated hive, assuming you could find the trigger to turn it off.

This is different then a DNA change where going back is impossible for the most part as the previous code no longer exists.

~Matt
 
#17 ·
"These queens are treatment free. They will thrive without treatments. But if you do treat, you'll destroy the genetics and they'll never be able to be treatment free again."

How true is that?
It's not true, but what will happen is depending on the treatment, the biology of the hive will be all messed up. For instance treating with an anti-biotic will temporarily mask the symptoms of AFB but will make the hive more susceptible to it in the future.

So while your interpretation of the person's words is technically incorrect, the effect is the same.
 
#20 ·
>So it begs the question, why take a Hard Bond approach?

No, it doesn't. The "Hard Bond" approach is about selection, not epigenetics. The "Hard Bond" approach is not about changing the genes in the current queen, it's about passing on to the next generation the genes that can survive and eliminating from the gene pool the ones that can't.

>I've heard it mentioned more than once before...

I'd still like to know where you heard it "mentioned more than once before", since I'm a pretty avid reader and have never "heard" it mentioned at all...
 
#22 ·
I'd still like to know where you heard it "mentioned more than once before", since I'm a pretty avid reader and have never "heard" it mentioned at all...
I put it in a post that was deleted by Barry.

I would suspect that you didn't "hear" it on here, or from being an avid reader, as reading would involve "seeing" it on here, not "hearing" it.

I have heard it from at least two local individuals, both not related to the other, both of which sell local queens, and have heard them say it on more than one occasion. I believe that qualifies as "more than once before." At least it does in my books.

As far as identifying the name of the two individuals, I will not. I'm not interested in spreading names. The point of the thread is the truth of the statement, not who said it.
 
#23 ·
I can see it as a gene expression trigger or something but the reverse would hold true, when you stop treating, they will express the same resistance genes when needed. I think what it refers to more is treating makes it harder to select for your best resistances on a continual basis because if you're treating queens and therefore drones that wouldn't have made it are still spreading their genes. The only other option is bees that would've died as a larva or pupae or emerged diseased are making it with low mite levels where they would not have during higher selection but then you would see seasonal changes in hives as well as the populations naturally build up during the year peaking in fall.
 
#32 ·
I think you are looking at this as tryign to get bits and piecs of good in and then keep them. Getting the good is really not the problem. it is getting the bad out. By saving those queens that are loosing the battle you are saving the very traits that do not allow them to survive. Breeding is more abotu selecting agains rather than selecting for. In other words rather than selecting for some degree of resistance you select agains the tendency to fail.

Think of a glass of pure water. Then water is added that is muddy. Just a little but you can still see the color of the water has been tenged. would you want to drink it? How much clean water would have to be added to make it clean enough to make it pure again? What if every bit of water you added had just a tiny bit of mud? It must be pure water you pour back in and you will have to pour it in for some period of time. You must take much care to not let any more contaminants get by. And breeding is actually like that . far more about recognizing and prohiitiing the contaminants than fostering along the desirable traits. the desirable seems to almost come to the forefront due to lack of any other interfering traits to prevent them from doing so.

If you get that idea you will begn to see how a queen with even a small amount of tendency to fail must be removed. she only adds a tiny bit of mud to the water but that is to much.
 
#33 ·
I'd be surprised if you could quote _anyone_ making that claim.

I'd be willing to bet that you can't quote anyone remotely credible who has made such a claim.

deknow
 
#37 ·
Well, the heritable microbiome is certainly altered (for at least 20 years, according to the Moran data) from antibiotic use.

Oldtimer, there is a lot of data about other bacillus (and other bacterial) populations playing a huge role in in defense against AFB and other microbial maladies.

A new paper shows a link between exposure to fungicides and a higher incidence of chalkbrood (a fungal disease)..the fungal population disrupted is ripe for an unbalanced infection.

Fungicide Contamination Reduces Beneficial Fungi in Bee Bread Based on an Area-Wide Field Study in Honey Bee, Apis mellifera, Colonies
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=291575
 
#38 ·
Ha Deknow, I did know that, and believed that you would be the man with the reference. ;)

But note I was specifically asking for a reference in regards to AFB as per Solomons claim. Not chalk brood. I am aware of the affect of micro flora on chalkbrood, AFB, not so much.

Point being, your reference has to do with the effects of fungicides on microflora. The thread topic is the effects of treatments on genetics, and the AFB argument as presented by Solomon, is 1. unsubstantiated, 2. a straw man argument, and 3. off topic and misleading.
 
#39 ·
Just as an interesting aside, chalkbrood is virtually unknown here, and we don't feed our bees antibiotics. Don't think I've seen chalkbrood in 20 years, and not more than a few isolated incidents my entire life.

So that, in a practicle setting, would be consistent with your claims Deknow, happy to believe you on that. Maybe even chalkbrood is a symptom of micoflora imbalance brought about as a direct result of antibiotic use. I'll bet even in the US, it is rare among long term treatment free folks.
 
#42 ·
So....let me get this straight.
If I was an ugly woman and got one date with a good looking man...it would change my DNA and I would turn into a Victoria Secret model?

LOL, I believe only a few things like radiation exposure and some serious age can actually CHANGE/Alter/ Damage your DNA. Constant small dose exposure to toxins over time can also cause damage. But one treatment changing the DNA? I find that impossible to believe or even consider.
Treatments masking flaws in the hives genetics? Now that's believable.

And depends on what 'treatments' you are talking about. Antibiotics or mite treatment. Disruption of the bees system through medication can be serious. Giving an infested hive a fighting chance to let VSH stock get a foothold and flourish is another.
 
#44 ·
And depends on what 'treatments' you are talking about. Antibiotics or mite treatment.
I would assume mite treatments. AFB isn't any more of a problem here than anywhere else. And most don't "advertise" resistance to AFB, or really select for it (as far as I know). When you sell a queen as "treatment free" around here, it's usually referred to as mites only.
 
#45 ·
At the risk of exposing my ignorance, it is known that humans in defoliated areas of VietNam suffered genetic changes as evidenced by several generations of birth defects. How that relates to treatments for bees, I don't know.
As to Lauri's statement, I have personal experience in ugly women being changed into models after the application of alcohol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top