Super-infection exclusion, redux
Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,248

    Default Super-infection exclusion, redux

    Mordecai, et al. published "Superinfection exclusion and the long-term survival of honey bees in Varroa-infested colonies" in 2015. This paper claimed to have isolated a non-virulent strain of DWV, "Type B" characteristic of a non-treatment apiary in England. The non-virulent strain "vaccinated" bees against the virulent versions of the virus.

    Randy Oliver, in coordination with Dr. Stephen Martin, organized a citizen science effort to collect viral samples across the US in an effort to detect a similar phenomenon in this country.

    I received my apiary results in the morning mail. I know Square Peg participated in this effort, will he also share his per apiary result? His relatively resilient TF apiary is on the opposite end of the spectrum than mine which is a "death trap" for colonies.

    Apiary result
    Type A = 27.10%, Type B = 72.90%, Type C = Negative
    Total infection = 2.05 x 10^6

    About 3/4 dominance of "Type B" in my TF yard. DWV viral loading was on the low end of "moderate" in the researcher's scaling.

    They write:
    Alongside establishing the average total DWV infection in your apiaries, the percentage of each variant has also been calculated. Based on current scientific evidence we understand that colonies with high loads of DWV type A are at a greater risk of dying. The type B variant may be providing some level of ‘protection’ to colonies, although it has been evidenced to be lethal when injected into caged adult bees in laboratory conditions. Type C is rare and is suspected to be lethal, as we found this present in colonies which died unexpectedly during the winter (Please read the suggested papers for more information).

    Total infection refers to the average total amount of deformed wing virus detected in the apiary.
    High viral loads are those above 1 x 10^10,
    Medium loads are in the range of 1 x 10^6 – 1 x 10^10
    Low loads are less than 1 x 10^6.
    Samples which were extremely low in DWV fell outside the quantifiable; these results are marked as BL .

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Rosebud Missouri
    Posts
    4,034

    Default Re: Super-infection exclusion, redux

    Very interesting. Thanks for participating in the test and then sharing the results.
    gww
    zone 5b

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,248

    Default Re: Super-infection exclusion, redux

    It is important to note that another research group found that the supposed "white knight" Type B is actually more virulent and lethal than the original variant "Type A". In the triumphalist postings about "Superinfection exclusion" and how TF will accelerate Darwinian evolution you never find any reference to the later study that threw a huge barrel of cold water on the research that contradicts the original "story line". It is this selective filtering of evidence that I find endemic in the TF partisans world.

    Until you read the contradictory finding, a free download, avoid getting on your high horse about magical TF miracles.
    Cite: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../1833/20160811

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Rosebud Missouri
    Posts
    4,034

    Default Re: Super-infection exclusion, redux

    Jw
    I could never get too high on a high horse cause if I remember correctly in the first study in England, They were artificially inseminating their bees. I myself am more a reader of what others do and a hick. My bees will be mutts until they die.
    Cheers
    gww
    zone 5b

  6. #5

    Default Re: Super-infection exclusion, redux

    All in all to understand correctly:

    -Mordecai et. al. say TypeB virus is protecting bees because they find it happening in England in a treatment free apiary

    -Randy Olliver is testing this hypothesis with Stephen Martin in US (publishing something later?)

    - McMahon finds that TypeB virus more virulent (harmfull) because they find it happening in varroa free island Colonsay in Scotland

    Where is the beef? Isn't it quite common in science to get contradicting results?

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,248

    Default Re: Super-infection exclusion, redux

    20160811.full.pdf.jpg

    Juhani, McMahon sampled all over England. Given the the frequency of exclusive Type B infection, Varroa should be a fading non-issue in Merry Old Englande. Clearly not the case. The original paper was fundamentally flawed by the "TF" hype. Type B had nothing to do with "survival", in fact we know nothing about the actual health of the Swindon apiary.

  8. #7

    Default Re: Super-infection exclusion, redux

    I remember the TV document of the Swindon bees (what is the name of the beekeeper? cannot remember) . It was kind of funny end to that document when the host said something like this " Iīm kind of sad because of him because it seems that all the breeding work has not succeeded, it has been the less virulent viruses which have been the secret"

    Maybe he did succeed in breeding.

    How is he and his bees? anyone who knows?

  9. #8

    Default Re: Super-infection exclusion, redux

    Quote Originally Posted by JWChesnut View Post
    Juhani, McMahon sampled all over England.
    My mistake, I only read the first sentence of methods chapter ...

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hamilton, Alabama
    Posts
    3,020

    Default Re: Super-infection exclusion, redux

    Type B had nothing to do with "survival", in fact we know nothing about the actual health of the Swindon apiary.
    This statement in and of itself is an unproven assumption. I'm not arguing either pro or con of this A vs B vs C. If you insist on facts from others, insist on facts from yourself. Back it up with proven research.
    NW Alabama, 50 years, 20 colonies and growing, sideliner, treatment free since 2005, 14 frame square Dadant broodnest

  11. #10

    Default Re: Super-infection exclusion, redux

    Ron Hoskins.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUFDXl8VGvs

    He was kind of surprised he had the b-type virus in his bee yards , but in his case it does not matter much because he selected for grooming.
    Bet he would have the same results with type a or his bees selected for themselves, recognizing the more lethal virus in the behavior of the co-workers and expelled them.

    This means to fight the cause and not the symptoms like selecting for hygienic bees. I understand that Dar did that to to develop his tf stock, shifting queens if he saw one mite sitting on a bee.

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Kamloops, BC, Canada
    Posts
    1,407

    Default Re: Super-infection exclusion, redux

    I look forward to seeing the full study.

  13. #12

    Default Re: Super-infection exclusion, redux

    Quote Originally Posted by Fusion_power View Post
    This statement in and of itself is an unproven assumption. I'm not arguing either pro or con of this A vs B vs C. If you insist on facts from others, insist on facts from yourself. Back it up with proven research.
    I'm going to save this quote for later. I think I'll title it....'pot, meet kettle'
    Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. - Emerson

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    10,170

    Default Re: Super-infection exclusion, redux

    Quote Originally Posted by JWChesnut View Post
    I know Square Peg participated in this effort, will he also share his per apiary result? His relatively resilient TF apiary is on the opposite end of the spectrum than mine which is a "death trap" for colonies.
    life is finding me behind updating my thread with this news as well as sharing the news of auburn's professor geoff williams' visit to my apiary last weekend. more to follow this upcoming weekend but here are the dwv results for now:

    "Apiary result

    Type A = 99.83%, Type B = 0.07%, Type C = 0.10%

    Total infection = 1.31 x 1011"

    (that last number is supposed to be 10 to the eleventh power)

    so my viral load is 'high' and predominantly type a.

    i had a 13.6% loss rate for the year the samples were taken.

    it appears that super-infection exclusion is not at work insofar and jwchesnut's and my bees are concerned.

    .
    Last edited by Rader Sidetrack; 06-13-2018 at 11:36 AM. Reason: insert superscript code ;>)
    journaling the growth of a (mite) treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  15. #14

    Default Re: Super-infection exclusion, redux

    Type A = 99.83%, Type B = 0.07%, Type C = 0.10%

    Total infection = 1.31 x 1011"
    Wow.
    It still works so whatīs going on?
    Some people say itīs just that keeping bees treatment free boosts the immune system so much they can stand a high viral load.

    This would confirm my experience with the much higher threshold my bees have compared with local treated colonies until they crash.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •