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
#185 ·
Given this statement:
...and also going directly against my current knowledge of genetic science and biology
I have to ask what about your current knowledge of genetic science and biology leads you to think that 'treating a queen destroys her genetics'?

I think the premise of this thread is as silly as if I started a thread stating that the two people in front of me in line at the gas station were both buying scratch tickets, and told me it was a good way to make money...what do members of beesource think?

If the original statements that you based the whole question on are from individuals that don't have a good basic understanding of what genetics are, then it would be unfair (to them) to apply some strict (and correct) definition to their meanings. The guy in front of me in line buying scratch tickets tells me he is lucky, and wins almost every week...should I believe him that 'luck' is responsible....or do I have a better understanding if I realize he spends $200/week on scratch tickets, and that the slim odds are in his favor to win once a week.

I'm trying to eke out some kind of 'truth' from the question you posed. The answer to your question is a simple "no", and doesn't require a thread or discussion to answer.

Is there a broader truth to the question? Does treating affect the superorganism (and its decendents) over a long period of time? Are things changed in the hive that are inherited by splits and swarms?

"counts" will rebound...it's the makeup of the population that changes more permanently.

I don't understand what it much matters between option 1 and option 2 above. There is good work being done to determine what the routes of inoculation are (bees are 'born' sterile), but it is not yet published, and not mine to share. I can say that various gut bacteria use various routes of inoculation (not all the same), and that little work has been done on gut microbes of queens specifically (from a biomass POV, her gut microbes are probably insignificant compared with what workers posses...probably more to do with the health of the individual queen than the health of the colony if I had to guess).

deknow
 
#232 ·
Given this statement:



.what do members of beesource think?





deknow
I think much of this thread has been fuelled by those that do not have a sound understanding of genetic science.

But...if through this thread some myths can be dispelled and some better understanding can be developed it is a good thread.

Basic punet square genetics, gene regulation, gene modulation..viral or otherwise...will affect any breeding outcomes..individual and population survival...

In the moment will treatments we are discussing have the potential to be anything more than act as a crutch for bees that could not live without it, allowing them to produce for the moment and continue a population that remains dependant on that crutch...no. They will not be directly changing the physical genetic make up of the treated Queen.
 
#187 ·
Gilliams work concerning yeast showed changes in yeast numbers in bee stomachs. The study says healthy free flying bees have very few yeast in their stomachs, so they were forced to confine the colonies and feed artifical diets to make the yeasts increase in their stomachs.

The bees were fed 2,4,d to cause an increase in yeasts, sugar syrup with antibotic, fed each week from September until the next June, caused a drop in the number/type of yeasts. After feeding the antibotic each week for 3 months, the bacteria in the stomach and all the yeasts were destroyed.

I don't think this study should be quoted to show treatments are damaging to honey bees. It gives an impression that normal feeding of syrup or antibiotics used in the prescribed manner damages the colony. This study was not normal in any fashion.
 
#188 ·
The expression of genes is issue of epigenetics, and is not about "destroying genetics".

If a queen's 'genetics were destroyed' by treatments, is it reasonable to think that bees are a special case? That exposure to 'treatments' destroys genetics in all insects, invertebrates, animals, life? If this were the case, there would be much more pressing problems than bees.

The questions you posed are an attempt at simplification, but oversimplify to the point of not being relevant to the questions you are asking.

Would there be any difference between the two?
Yes, there would be a difference.

Or would both of their microbe counts be just as decimated?
Microbe counts will always be decimated by treatments that kill microbes.
'microbe counts' is a gross oversimplification...the biomass will generally return to previous levels...but the population makeup will differ based on many factors...probably including what is going on with other hives in the area. That population makeup is what makes things function. Treatments reduce the diversity of these populations.

Would the second option degrade the probability that the colony will generate resistant characteristics any more than the first option?
No...but both options decimate the microbial populations and constrict the diversity within these populations.
There is a continuum of niches through the alimentary canal of the bee that hosts a continuum of microbial populations (mostly made up of 9 strains and their variants). When you reduce this diversity, you reduce the level of specialization that these populations have developed in concert with the bees.
Some of these bacteria are so well adapted to the bee that they appear integral with the ilium.

I'm not calling anyone stupid...that appears to be your own hangup.

deknow
 
#190 ·
That exposure to 'treatments' destroys genetics in all insects, invertebrates, animals, life? If this were the case, there would be much more pressing problems than bees.

deknow
So, there shouldn't be anything wrong with treating bees as the effects are only temporary and not genetically modifying them?

And the only real difference in bee colonies is not the genetic makeup of the hive its the other microorganisms within the hive?
 
#189 ·
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0068191

They've demonstrated that pesticides can cause a change in gene expression in Honeybee larvae.

So, I would say that while it won't change the queen's genome, treatments can likely influence gene expression.

Treatments can alter the queen's gene expression.

I would put it in the same category as immune priming. Some would say that it carries a metabolic penalty.
 
#192 ·
If a treatments did cause mutations in a Honeybee/queen, it would be too dangerous to use.

However, if you're referring to organophosphates, then I see that there is a possible issue with a current organophosphate being used to treat Honeybees.

"So, I would say that while it won't change the queen's genome..."

Let me think about retracting the above statement.

Coumaphos is an organophosphate.

Why do you think organophosphates have fallen out of favor?
 
#194 ·
just my 2 cents, but with so many variables, chief among them open mating, and considering bee genetics alone, i wouldn't expect to see mite resistance expressed evenly across the board in any given apiary, regardless of treatments or not.

so my answer the question in the op would be it would be really hard to know whether it would make a difference.

just like with other traits, mite resistance will express itself to a greater or lesser degree, and it's my feeling that each queen and her colony have to be evaluated based on their own performance.

the bees i am keeping are from a lineage that have not been treated for mites for many years. these bees are past simply survivability. so far i have only had one hive crash from mites, but i have had queen failures that could have been secondary to mites. some hives have certainly been more productive than others, but that seems to be more related to whether or not they swarmed.

most of my colonies are brooding up right now and we are on our fall flow. sometime around the first frost, i plan to take mite counts using the alcohol wash method. i have kept a detailed journal and hope to see if i can correlate mite count with other metrics.
 
#196 · (Edited)
Amitraz? It looks like its metabolites have 'issues'.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3280992

"It is concluded that neither amitraz nor its metabolites have mutagenic activity. In contrast to amitraz, its metabolites alkylate DNA in the N3-position of adenine."

I wouldn't call that destroying the queen's genetics. But, it's an unusual DNA alteration.

They've used the term "mutagenic potential' in the following though:

http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/4121


"Chronic exposure to amitraz has been associated with an increased incidence of oncogenicity in mice. The genotoxicity data base indicates that amitraz and 2-4-dimethylaniline (a primary plant metabolite and an intermediate mammalian metabolite of amitraz) have mutagenic potential..."

Maybe Amitraz can alter the queen's genetics? It has potential!
 
#205 ·
When you collect a swarm from somebody's garden, and they tell you they saw it come from that hole in that tree over there two hours ago, and it does that every year, sometime twice... and you can see the bees around the parent colony... you can be pretty sure you _know_ where it came from.

Mike (UK)
 
#215 ·
This post has been deleted
#222 ·
what i have is essentially 17 years into mike's 'experiment', i.e. the end result of successive generations of bees that have not been treated which through both natural and artificial winnowing appear to be demonstrating the ability to thrive and be productive off treatments.

but i don't have any grand illusions that i have some kind of superbee, and i realize that all it would take is a very virulent virus to come along to cause mass casualties. there are reports on the forum of just that happening to folks, reports of losing all or most colonies after some years of being off treatments.

since the bee's natural resistance to viruses and other pathogens is mediated through their immune system, and since the effectiveness of their immune system is dependent on nutrition, i think that there should be more focus on bee diet.

i think that one should consider how plentiful and diversified the forage available to their bees is, consider the drawbacks of too much (or too little) supplemental feeding, and make sure that the bees at least have what they need for their natural immunity to be working optimally.

i'm not sure how this could be achieved on the practical level, short of analyzing pollen samples, but it might explain in part why there are pockets of bees that are doing better than others off treatments.
 
#224 ·
since the bee's natural resistance to viruses and other pathogens is mediated through their immune system, and since the effectiveness of their immune system is dependent on nutrition, i think that there should be more focus on bee diet.
From my research I think this is really an underestimated aspect of successful treatment-free beekeeping, along with the importance of hive microbiota.

Maybe genetics is an overestimated component of success, given the complexity and unavoidable out-crossing of bee breeding. This seems especially likely with small-timers who are working with a fairly small number of hives.

Partly this idea appeals to me because it's a very optimistic one. If it's right, then you can succeed without super bees, if your cultural practices are good enough.
 
#223 ·
No matter what you do to preserve or improve genetics in your home apiary your queens fly out and mate with a drone population which you have little or no control over - as do your drones for that matter. The good news is that they have All survived for decades while dealing with mites - and anecdotal reports are that the overall situation may be improving.

I suspect that everyone who has some bees which live, and others which die, contributes a bit toward bees adapting to life in the modern world.
 
#240 ·
two actual situation I know of that relate to this "What is a suitable variability" issue.

1. this was an actually study that required years to conduct. The question was. how many unrelated pairs of humans would have been required to successfully migrate to the Americas?
The answer was 67 or 134 unrelated individuals.

2. The relatively recent importation of the Serama from Malaysia. 137 unrelated pairs where imported. the number one issue in the breeding of Seramas today is lack of genetic diversity or symptoms of inbreeding. Cross breeding with bantams is under way in order to boost the gene pool.

The analogy to building a house and having a hand full of options does not work. not only is a hand full of options even if you are making thousands of choices not nearly enough. but you are limited to choices of light fixtures that will all short and burn down your house. There is no good choice.

In addition it is not a matter of how many options are out here among suppliers. it s the choices you have in your apiary. You are not building new colonies from the selection the world offers you are building them from the tiny corner hardware store that is your bee yard. The issue is you think that is a first rate hardware store. most think it does not offer nearly enough options. Real world condition of the Honey Bee indicates the latter is correct.
 
#244 ·
1. this was an actually study that required years to conduct. The question was. how many unrelated pairs of humans would have been required to successfully migrate to the Americas?
The answer was 67 or 134 unrelated individuals.
Interesting

The analogy to building a house and having a hand full of options does not work. not only is a hand full of options even if you are making thousands of choices not nearly enough.
My example was:

"Lets try an analogy: take a finite set of house-making components, say 1000. You have 10 different sorts of bricks, 15 different roof tiles, 8 different curtain colours in 4 different fabrics 5 different sorts of light fittings, and so on. These are the essential components, and the diversity has a figure - 1000."

This is the first 5 items of 1000 - bricks, tiles, curtain colours, fabrics, light fittings. Just those gives you 10*15*8*4*5 = 24,000 combinations

Just try to imagine what number of combinations will be presented by 1000 different items, with say an average of 6 choices each! It will, I'm guessing, run into the billions.

It is that sort of maths that enables us to say of living things that each is an 'individual'. The mathematical probability of any two being identical are so remote as to be discounted.

...but you are limited to choices of light fixtures that will all short and burn down your house. There is no good choice.
.

No - just one of the 5 different sorts is flawed.

In addition it is not a matter of how many options are out here among suppliers. it s the choices you have in your apiary.
...and which are available from surrounding colonies. Note that in any apiary that has not been subjected to mite pressure (or which has been systematically treated for several generations - it amounts to the same thing) a significant measure of resistance (in the form of one or more of the hygeinic behaviours) can be anticipated in about 10% of colonies. That represents genes held in the background in any population, ready to be 'bought forward' by natural selection as and when that is beneficial.

So: if you have 20 or so hives there is a good chance you have some good light fittings to hand. But you'll have to apply some skill to bring them forward.

You are not building new colonies from the selection the world offers you are building them from the tiny corner hardware store that is your bee yard. The issue is you think that is a first rate hardware store. Most think it does not offer nearly enough options. Real world condition of the Honey Bee indicates the latter is correct.
My analogy was intended to illustrate how colonies/queens could be lost without diminishing genetic diversity. Its bound to fail at some point if we try to stretch it too far. But: as above, you have wider resources (though they may be less use than you'd hope - or they may be very useful...) and you (in the US) can buy in resistant queens to help the process along/supply a bigger hardware store.

But I think you are right: an apiary with a narrowish genetic base that has been treated systematically for maybe ten years wouldn't be my first choice of source material to build a resistant line of bees. And that is what is available to most commercial beekeepers. Further, since they've decimated their surrounding ferals, they are not going to get much help from that quarter either.

I don't know their histories, but my guess is this is something like Specialkayme's and Oldtimer's situations. They tried with poor source stock, and with insufficient understanding of how to maximise their chances and failed. Now they're telling us all its impossible, and defending that position with rationales built on a shaky grasp of the mechanics of population dynamics. That's just my reading.

Mike (UK)
 
#242 ·
here is a conversation abotu this that has formed in my head.

Beekeepers: "Your bees are going to die".
Me: "Why is that"?
Beekeepers: "Because they have Varroa mites".
Me: "So I will kill the mites"
Beekeepers: "Try as we might we have never found a way to kill the mites, But that is okay because the bees could live with the mites if it where not for all the disease that the mites give to the bees. That is what really kills them".
Me: "So then I can just cure the diseases that the mites give the bees"?
Beekeepers: "Oh you don't want to do that".
Me: "Why not"?
Beekeeprs: "because that makes bees to weak to withstand diseases".
Me: "Well that is what I thought you where telling me I already have"?
Beekeeprs: (Silence)
Me: "So what do I do about my bees dying"?
Beekeepers: "You just get more bees".
Me: "but that is not keeping the bees I have from dying".
Beekeeprs: Yes it will , by letting your bees die you will end up with bees that can survive".
Me: "dead bees that survive"? I think this is getting confusing
Beekeepers: "No not all the bees die. some will survive and you then replace your dead ones with those".
Me: well then I want the bees that can survive".
Beekeepers: "Oh, We don't have any of those".
Me: "what happened to them"?
Beekeepers: "They got killed by Varroa mite back in 96". "Didn't we tell you that your bees will die because they have Varroa"?
 
#250 ·
One element that doesn't seem to be acknowledged is that treated colonies are also under selective pressure. If 30% of treated colonies are dying every winter, then it seems reasonable to assume that those that remain are more resistant to whatever is killing the colonies in that operation.

(Unfortunately, this leads me to wonder sometimes if what is being selected for... is the ability to withstand treatment and still be productive.)

The optimistic view is that eventually varroa mites will become the non-problem that tracheal mites seem to have become, in spite of the great preponderance of treated colonies in the gene pool. I think it's reasonable to assume that selective pressure dealt with tracheal mites successfully, since by the time they arrived in North America, they were no longer the devastating problem that they were for UK beekeepers in the early part of the 20th century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top