Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

dsRNA ingested by bees is transferred to the Varroa mite and from mite on to a parasi

28K views 82 replies 21 participants last post by  Barry 
#1 ·
Bidirectional Transfer of RNAi between Honey Bee and Varroa destructor: Varroa Gene Silencing Reduces Varroa Population
We previously reported that honey bees fed on double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) with a sequence homologous to that of the Israeli acute paralysis virus are protected from the viral disease. Here we show that dsRNA ingested by bees is transferred to the Varroa mite and from mite on to a parasitized bee. This cross-species, reciprocal exchange of dsRNA between bee and Varroa engendered targeted gene silencing in the latter, and resulted in an over 60% decrease in the mite population.
http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003035
 
#29 ·
I don't see it quite so easy as you do Ian. If you believe that Monsanto is going develop this product and give it away for free well...erm ah ... anyways hope they do.

JRG the primer is the bee it would be the easiest source to use to infect the mite with.
 
#30 ·
It has to be commercially available for any profits to be made on it. It has to be economically feasible for a commercial out fit otherwise it will not be bought.
If you would like to compare it to other types of poducts they sell,
those products were developed and brought to the market. Economics dictated the price point and the quality of the product dictated the popularity of its use
 
#31 ·
Ian I know all about making money, I am a business owner, but thanks for the insight into how money is made. I will also base my judgement of Monsanto on it's business practices aside from their making money schemes to determine where their heart really is.

We can agree on how to make money but never on business practices that border on criminal. Anyone for some E. Coli DNA spliced salad?
 
#32 ·
I use their product. It has advanced our ability to grow food. It has made me money hand over fist. It has allowed us to practice more sustainable farming practices. It has allowed us to minimize out tillage, saving fuel, saving the soil structure, and it has cut our pesticide bill in half, it has also cut our pesticide usage by 1/3.
Bad bad Monsanto

With a little RnD now being focused on the honeybee industry, we may just see some of the same advances as we have elsewhere in agriculture in relation to disease control. RnD is what the industry has been screaming for over 10 years now.
 
#36 ·
I use their product. It has advanced our ability to grow food. It has made me money hand over fist. It has allowed us to practice more sustainable farming practices. It has allowed us to minimize out tillage, saving fuel, saving the soil structure, and it has cut our pesticide bill in half, it has also cut our pesticide usage by 1/3.
Bad bad Monsanto
OK, some people have a beef with that - I don't

...the complaint I have - and a lot of others have, is when other people are trying to grow something different and Big Ag's pollen gets on other people's crops and other people have to shut down or get assimilated because their crops now have Big Ag's genes.

That's a hostile act by the Big Ag companies - and it is wrong. Big Ag took away someone else's rights just to protect their money.

Improve things ...no problem ...but don't stomp on what others want to do or want to grow.
 
#33 ·
Most folks opposed to modern farming practices and products have never been exposed to the farming practices which were common back in the 50's and 60's. The norm back then was disk, plow, disk, plant, rotary hoe, and cultivate as many as three times. Chemicals back then? Oh yeah, lots of them and usually broad spectrum pesticides that fried everything out there. Lots and lots of herbicide that washed down out of the fields when the inevitable erosion occurred from the tillage practices. The amount of fuel used per acre was incredible but in those days ag fuel was probably around .10 per gallon. Today we usually see a single no till planting pass and a couple of passes with large spraying equipment. Residue from the previous crop are allowed (in most cases) to rot into the soil. The ground is disturbed very little. Newer hybrid seed has increased yields dramatically. Argue all you want about the ethics of big business but don't deny that without the technological advances in agriculture there is no way we could produce the food needed to feed 7 billion people.
 
#39 ·
Ian if you feel that big AG's GMO crops are for you great but, you need to keep your open pollinated crops from transferring that DNA to others properties.

As far as the beekeepers earning any privilege ... well, erm ... just WOW what can I say, your a beekeeper right?
 
#42 ·
As far as the beekeepers earning any privilege ... well, erm ... just WOW what can I say, your a beekeeper right?
I hope you get permission to place bees on properties . I run 30 yards, many yards on my own land. The rest of the yards I get access to the property. And for the rest of the property around me I work with the farmers to prevent any pesticide damages from occurring. My hives are foraging on their land.
 
#41 ·
nope, property rights is a real thing. Beekeepers cant tell property owners what to grow and not to grow.
Government on the other hand can, as the government holds all property.
So if something happening on that property is a violation of government law, then that property owner is liable
beekeepers hold no right over property owners.

ever wonder why beekeepers cant claim liability for pesticide kills?
 
#46 ·
Lee the concern about wind drift is a legitimate one. The concern about getting sued by Monsanto for such wind drifted seed production is not. The Percy Schmeister case is the only one I have ever heard of where wind blown pollen was claimed to be the source of replanted seed. All courts ruled thatMr. Schmeister's claims were not believable. Genetically modified seeds are patented. You may not save seed and replant it. The only other cases that I am aware of were cases where it was proven that the farmers did exactly that and they were all decided by the courts in favor of Monsanto. I understand how Monsanto controls much of the seed business in the US and I would agree that it isn't an ideal situation to say the least but lets not forget that this technology also makes farmers a lot of money.
 
#48 ·
but lets not forget that this technology also makes farmers a lot of money.
then could we please send this information to our reps and do away with the farm subsidies, so we can pay what the crops are really worth:thumbsup: then maybe our bees would be able to work something other than corn and soybeans. had to get bees in there somewhere else I would be moved to tailgater:p
 
#51 ·
when I sat in on a meeting a couple or few years back, they were still in the development stage,
They said at that point of time, the cost per treatment was $1000 per dose.
They said the next step was to develop the facility to bring the costs down to a feasible cost for commercial use
I would think that is where Monsanto come in to play
 
#52 ·
"Argue all you want about the ethics of big business but don't deny that without the technological advances in agriculture there is no way we could produce the food needed to feed 7 billion people."

Jim, you say that, but I hear this... http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/15/us-mcdonalds-china-idUSTRE6BE0VJ20101215

Do you think that 7 billion people are adequately fed? Americans placed something like 14th in health of rich countries, while dietary related diseases and poor nutrition remains a persistent problem in many parts of the world. If enough nutritious food is being produced, why all the health issues?

Concerning the (ag) advances over the last 50-100 years; Ian, do you think that we can continue to see similar increases in commercial crop yield in the next 50 - 100 years (to keep up with population growth)? Can we simultaneously preserve and even increase native habitat while doing so?

In my opinion, this statement ignores the innovation that could have occurred in localized, small scale agriculture as opposed to large scale monoculture production and as such, I don't think it's a good argument to follow it with "I used less gas, made more money and worked less". These values of the past were enabled by commercialized sense that cheap, easy and disposable is good. - "I do not prize the word cheap. It is not a word of inspiration. It is the badge of poverty, the signal of distress. Cheap merchandise means cheap men and cheap men mean a cheap country."
-William McKinley

Trespass issues were created to keep humans from entering or destroying property, not all genetic material. A whole new framework of what trespass is should have been developed before novel genetic material was released (obviously didn't happen). To me, the concept of 'genetic property' is flawed... like you taxing your children (via. chores) and expecting that the family he or she marries into is then also in debt to you and that they are obligated legally to perform tasks or pay you for your (drifting) genetic property (i.e dowery?). Also, I appreciate ownership of private property, but not at the expense of those who will use it after (you know, you lease from your children...). To believe that you OWN land and can destroy it or any organism on it that you choose is simply selfish. It is clear to me that we are in debt to those that follow, not just those that come before.

The tides are turning though, people don't want to settle for cheap when it's no longer inexpensive, convenient, healthy, tasty and natural, all of which you can attain in your own back yard or with a CSA to a much greater degree than we have in the past 50 years. Bees, chickens and produce are all back on the backyard menu and people feel great about local, heirloom, non-industrialized foods. Growing even a few basic green and roots can transform us in huge ways. Not only is the exercise healthy, but growing food puts us back in touch with nature and our connection to the soil, while reducing pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, transportation fuel, packaging, rot and unhealthy, flavorless foods,... or supporting companies we don't trust for whatever reason.
 
#57 ·
Concerning the (ag) advances over the last 50-100 years; Ian, do you think that we can continue to see similar increases in commercial crop yield in the next 50 - 100 years (to keep up with population growth)? Can we simultaneously preserve and even increase native habitat while doing so?
Yes! we are getting better at controling disease, and when we can fully protect our crops from disease we will have higher predictable yields. Quality is a big concern, as alot of food gets down graded from disease damages and can not be consumed by humans, to which is salvaged into livestock feed.
Utilization of our lands are becoming more efficient, turning sour land or wet lands into productive agricultural land.

As in regards to beekeeping,
If we can integrate a disease control method to eliminate diseases like nosema, our bees will be healthier and much better off. practicing disease control measures without treating with pesticides and antibiotics
 
#53 ·
I think we should go free market. No more farm subsidies. I am WILLING to pay $8 a gallon for milk, especially since I own my own milk goat, and I think that our farm subsidies are making Monsanto richer and meaner. But that's just my uninformed opinion.
 
#54 ·
Wow! :eek:

Regarding post #52, I eat as much as I can out of my garden. But no garden or even a "typical" CSA is capable of producing some common foods within reasonable effort. Anyone who has tried to consistently bake bread or other flour-based baked goods knows that while you might be able to grow grains, harvesting grains by hand is very difficult, hence very costly.
 
#55 ·
I've got Hopi Amaranth seeds on order. I eat very few grains, although I'd be hard-pressed to grow oatmeal or rice. I do like Quinoa but it won't grow here. I do need enough grain to feed my chickens, so I guess I will be planting non-monsanto corn.

I probably don't eat 3 lbs worth of wheat flour a year, but then my weight is normal for a 20 year old, as is my BP, etc. My sugar bill for bee-feeding is exhorbitant though, or has been, with the drought..
 
#58 ·
To bring this thread back to the topic of the original post, the research makes me wonder if/how such a technology would be profitable for a company. Every thing I've heard about bees suggests that bees and mites drift pretty freely under a number of circumstances. That means, I think, that a small initial inoculation with a dsRNA product would quickly spread from bee to bee and from hive to hive.

It's one thing when a biotech company sells hybrid seed for crops with specific genetic traits, and another entirely when they sell a replicating gene for use in living organisms. Most growers do not produce their own hybrid seed for growing crops, and the technology is comparatively protected. If a transgenic trait against aphids, for example, was also being vectored from plant to plant by the aphids, such a "product" would tend to escape into the general landscape pretty quickly.

This research does make you wonder how many bits of DNA and RNA are being moved from bee to bee through parasitism by mites without humans noticing, doesn't it?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top