A new study

[Finman]

.
I do not know what Dr. Bell is going to do, but the deep knowledge about 100 y old history does not help.
I have 35 years experience about varroa, and 54 y experience about beekeeping. I know something about issue.

I do not either believe, that researching as a hobby with hobby beekeepers gives any help in varroa control. It is not that easy.

Universities around the world continue researching varroa. It needs huge amount of money to arrange projects, international meetings and so on.

But only few countries have beekeeping researchers. But somehow they want to get their own research and they try to hidden earlier researching. It tells to me, that they do not exactly know, what they are doing.

Do nothing and let evolution take care about varroa, to that opinion I give zero value.

Fusion Pover, you should understand, that varroa evelope too. Varroa free bee stocks are so far a beautifull theory. Hives have however the parasite, and it takes its own part from the bees' production.

 

[REDWOOD]

Good morning Mr Finman, nice weather here today, looks a bit like Turkey with the sun shining through the haze

 

[Fusion_power]

Finman, perhaps you want to see a genetic solution something along the lines of what is being proposed for mosquitoes. Combine a gene drive with a gene that makes all males sterile and insert it into varroa so that the mites progressively eliminate themselves as they become incapable of reproducing. This sounds far fetched, but it is being done with mosquitoes and eventually will be done with other species.

We could argue that mosquitoes have a different way of reproducing that relies on unrelated individuals mating where varroa routinely use brother sister matings. Perhaps it would be harder to use on varroa, but I suspect it will eventually be done. Can you imagine what it would be like to have no varroa?

 

[Finman]

Finman, perhaps you want to see a genetic solution something along the lines of what is being proposed for mosquitoes. ?

Yeah. I have education of biological researcher. I have studied evolution and genetics in Helsinki University. I have nothing to learn in these forums.

If I want to learn something, I read university researches. And I draw conclusions between lines.

Beekeeping has nothing so difficult, what I cannot understand.

In USA the main trend is "let it be" in varroa control, and results you can read from "beegive losses USA 2016".

Europe is 10 years ahead USA in varroa researching. Scientic Beekeeper read European varroa researches and then writes a story. He is a great guru in New World. Sad to say, these things have too much hype..
.
.

 

[Finman]

Can you imagine what it would be like to have no varroa?

No, but I have nursed bees without varroa 25 years. It was horrible time. German Black Mongrels were every where. But thanks to varroa, it killed them all.
It is easier to nurse varroa than Black Bee Mongrels. Varroa was bkessing to Finnish beekeeping after all.

When varroa came to Finland over Russian border about 1975, during 10 years there was no treatment against mite. I got Perizin 1987 from Germany. Next year all got that in Finland.

My friend had 60 hives. They all died in 2 years
I offered Perizin to him for free, but he said that "lets look bext year, but not now". Next winter he lost 30 hives. Year was 87/88.

One professional lost 240 hives, because his wife did not let him to travel Germany to buy Perizin.
.

 

[Finman]

.
But about varroa researching...

European varria researchers started to study 10 years ago, how to standardize varroa researching. Many did researches, but arrangemenst were difficult to compare and verify.

Results has been published in Coloss Project.
.

 

[thenovice]

Dear Dr Bell,

on an open forum, you will have to weed a lot through the layers of personal opinions an grudges before you can analyse anything else.

for what it is worth, as a budding beekeeper (4th year) and a couple of hives my humble opinion is that beekeepers, especially amateurs, are the main threat. bad management combined with a selection of inferior genetics gave us stressed bees that produce honey, do not swarm and do not sting but have no resistance to pests and diseases.
That said, the tide is turning with new projects selecting hygienic bees and others are conducted and will lead to better strains. To add an anecdote from my own experience, I keep locally collected mongrels. I have lost my first hive to CPBV virus this year. a thriving colony just withered and died. My hygienic practice is appalling but none of my other 4 hives had any problems. One other hive struggled a bit with Nosema but none of the others and one of my hives did not seem to build up varroa numbers last year (luck or hygiene?)

I am more than happy to be part of any research but I fear that as a scientist you must understand that if you involve amateurs, very often your data will be difficult to analyse due to non uniformity of the genetic backgrounds of the bees and the practices in the apiaries. You will also have to deal with misplaced goodwill in altering the protocols.

My view on what the problems in our region are:

on a first place Varroa and/or DWV
second: nosema
third: CPBV which seems very much linked to genetics

fourth: hive beetle when, not if it comes to the UK
fifth: the foulbroods, although not very common, I'd like to have a contingency plan

good luck!

 

[Dr J.Bell]

.
I do not know what Dr. Bell is going to do, but the deep knowledge about 100 y old history does not help.
I have 35 years experience about varroa, and 54 y experience about beekeeping. I know something about issue.

I do not either believe, that researching as a hobby with hobby beekeepers gives any help in varroa control. It is not that easy.

Universities around the world continue researching varroa. It needs huge amount of money to arrange projects, international meetings and so on.

But only few countries have beekeeping researchers. But somehow they want to get their own research and they try to hidden earlier researching. It tells to me, that they do not exactly know, what they are doing.

Do nothing and let evolution take care about varroa, to that opinion I give zero value.

Fusion Pover, you should understand, that varroa evelope too. Varroa free bee stocks are so far a beautifull theory. Hives have however the parasite, and it takes its own part from the bees' production.

I am going to be blunt.



Lets start with the size of our study and the resources we have.

I stated our grant was not large, indeed it is not as large as i would like. But do not be under illusion i am sitting in a shed doing this on my own! We are working in partnership with a well known Scottish university (common practice), we have a purpose built research center and have some funding from the EU on top of the original grant.

I am on a 5 year contract as lead researcher and consultant, i currently have a staff of 15 to conduct this study, this obviously does not include PhD students etc from the university.

I find it somewhat arrogant of you to state the answer does not lay with the small scale producer, i have 34 years experience working on many different studies associated with more than one organism. I have been involved in many of the large sterile studies of Varroa held in 'artificial conditions).

It is a complete misconception that the smaller producer is in someway inferior to the company or person with 1000 hives. We have tried the normal routes (We being the scientific community) and it simply dosnt work as a start point, the idea behind what we are doing is to engage the smaller producer and identify those likely to be able to take part.

The advantage of doing this is clear, smaller producer's in general spend far more time per hive per week than any commercial or research group can. It is also far easier to arrange treatments to try etc with a single person, than it is with a large company. Many of the large producers would be completely unwilling to try anything new for fear of loss.

A point made by the other poster is also most relevant, smaller producers are likely to not stick to the script, this can be an advantage. What we want to study is a real world scenario, the treatments we wish to study for efficacy are more likely to have an impact if used over large areas by many people, rather than several large producers using them over relatively smaller distances.

To trash a study that you have next to no information about is not the way research is done. I would be appalled if a student i was mentoring acted in this way. So far i have only engaged to see the level of interest, i have given few details. As a happy coincidence a member from the BBKA has asked for a short article on the study, i think that would be an excellent opportunity to disclose more detail.

I dont wish to sound harsh but i would appreciate it if you didnt make assumptions about what we are doing, or our ability to do it.


To the poster who mentioned bad genetics and practices, commercial stocks generally are not isolated from the real world. You would be surprised how often a problem goes unnoticed in a larger operation.

One final point Finman

You state the answer does not lay with small scale keepers and history is of no importance, i would ask you to consider the fact that Thymol as well as other practices were discovered by an individual Beek around ~1916, he was also the first person to keep over 1000 hives. Many consider him the father of modern Bee keeping, so i would argue if done correctly then the answer does in fact lay with the small scale keeper .

As to my credentials, i havnt checked recently but as long as google dosnt consider me a private person, then you should be able to find a wealth of information on my career. I am no longer associated with an academic center, i chose to work in industry for a while. however you should be able to find me in archives from various universities, the bulk of my more recent work has be with parasites.

Dr J.Bell

 

[Dr J.Bell]

Dear Dr Bell,

on an open forum, you will have to weed a lot through the layers of personal opinions an grudges before you can analyse anything else.

for what it is worth, as a budding beekeeper (4th year) and a couple of hives my humble opinion is that beekeepers, especially amateurs, are the main threat. bad management combined with a selection of inferior genetics gave us stressed bees that produce honey, do not swarm and do not sting but have no resistance to pests and diseases.
That said, the tide is turning with new projects selecting hygienic bees and others are conducted and will lead to better strains. To add an anecdote from my own experience, I keep locally collected mongrels. I have lost my first hive to CPBV virus this year. a thriving colony just withered and died. My hygienic practice is appalling but none of my other 4 hives had any problems. One other hive struggled a bit with Nosema but none of the others and one of my hives did not seem to build up varroa numbers last year (luck or hygiene?)

I am more than happy to be part of any research but I fear that as a scientist you must understand that if you involve amateurs, very often your data will be difficult to analyse due to non uniformity of the genetic backgrounds of the bees and the practices in the apiaries. You will also have to deal with misplaced goodwill in altering the protocols.

My view on what the problems in our region are:

on a first place Varroa and/or DWV
second: nosema
third: CPBV which seems very much linked to genetics

fourth: hive beetle when, not if it comes to the UK
fifth: the foulbroods, although not very common, I'd like to have a contingency plan

good luck!

Please dont worry about being a small scale producer! You are exactly the type of person who can make a difference.
Look at it logically, who spends more time looking and fussing over a hive? The operation with 1000+ hives or the person with 5?

Who is more willing to use something new and experimental when a problem strikes? The person with a large operation who already allows a number of fails in there figures each year, or the person with a small number of hives who wants to save them at any cost?

Interestingly there is little to actually do from the keepers side. Lets say you spot Varroa (this is not just a Varroa study!), we will send you a bio secure package and ask you send some mites from your hive (dead or alive, but fresh). At a later date we will offer various treatments, these are blind trialed so when you use them (if you want to) you wont know until after what you have used. The main thing will be simple note taking on observations of your hive when you inspect.

Under some conditions we may ask permission to send a down around to take various samples and gather information.

One final point i tried to make above, small scale keepers are the answer. Large scale producers will not change practices until they see a working solution being used by large numbers of people.

The ideal situation would be to develop something cheap and easy to use, if we can make it simple for the small scale producer then it is far more likely to be taken up. As stated elsewhere, The company who originally set this up had a conflict of interest. The company we are working does not, this is not about developing a product to make money. This is a study and research to tackle something that is likely to become an extremely serious situation.

I do not want to bandy figures and spread scare stories, but i can say honestly the driving force behind what we are doing is not motivated by money, the motivation is to try and stop the steep decline of viable colonies.
Everybody whether a Beekeeper or not, will be affected if population's continue to crash at current rates.

 

[Vortex]

Interesting discussion..

In many respects the answer is the small scale Beekeeper .. New Zealand and EFB would be one example .. it was the beekeepers who decided that something need to be done in the absence of any Government program after they removed it.

Getting a consensus may prove difficult

I'm willing to throw my hat into this ring .. I had volunteered some sites for a recent university study but they weren't quite in the right locations.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

bad management combined with a selection of inferior genetics gave us stressed bees that produce honey, do not swarm and do not sting

Where can I get some of these? does LASI sell them (I bet you they will shortly )

I am going to be blunt.

............l

Well said! but remember - there are none so deaf as will not hear

 

[Finman]

.
What ever it will happen, it is good that British universities start to publish practical researchs. They are rare in internet.

And in my country, we have not a single ( or married) beekeeping researcher. Vain to ask what they have done.

 

[Dr J.Bell]

Interesting discussion..

In many respects the answer is the small scale Beekeeper .. New Zealand and EFB would be one example .. it was the beekeepers who decided that something need to be done in the absence of any Government program after they removed it.

Getting a consensus may prove difficult

I'm willing to throw my hat into this ring .. I had volunteered some sites for a recent university study but they weren't quite in the right locations.

Logically small scale producers have the potential for a higher overall impact.

Several points to consider.

Wild populations are more likely to be influenced genetically by small scale producers....

The reasoning behind this is wild/semi wild populations near small scale producers, are more likely to come into contact with genetics from the keepers Bees. A large number of small scale producers have 'day jobs', therefore a limited amount of days in a week in which to visit the hive. This may be one reason a small scale producer is more likely to experience a 'swarm', the increase in swarm probability directly affects the probability of genetic influence on wild/semi wild populations near by.

Wild populations are notorious as acting as reservoirs for pathogens, even though the population itself is often capable of surviving a larger infestation than a 'domestic' colonie.

Conversely while the small scale producer has a more limited number of days to attend hives, the mean time spent inspecting a hive tends to be higher than that of a commercial operation. This often leads to quicker detection of problems, in a commercial operation of any meaningful size, there is often not the luxury of time to sit and watch Bees! Small scale producers are far more likely to 'Bee gaze!'.

It is easier and less expensive for a small producer to change method and protocol and invest in a new product. On a large operation it can be common to buy in bulk or indeed to have a contract of supply for products, this allows them to negotiate better prices.
If a new product comes to market and application is different to what they currently use, then the larger operator's also have the cost of training to take into consideration.

There are other reasons including software changes for the very large producers etc.

The small scale producer simply reads the label and applies the treatment.
Large scale operators are more likely to take a product up after seeing the efficacy demonstrated by smaller scale operators, in this case it would be reasonable for them to want to see results before using a product and potentially risking a vast amount of money if they loose a high percentage of their operation.

Engaging large scale operations can be difficult, ultimately they are run as a business and meeting after meeting has to take place, contracts need to be drawn up and any number of decisions taken, for example in the event a trial product causes fatality who is responsible? Are there any insurance issues relating to non certified products? The list can be endless, however it is surprising just how fast they can move once something is proven to work!

I have mentioned elsewhere that one of the most common treatments for Varroa (Thymol) was discovered and first used by a small scale Beek working on his own, admittedly later on he became a large scale producer and is responsible for many of today's practices.

The number of small scale producers is largely a guesstimate, i have been surprised many times to find hives in gardens etc that i suspect few people even know exist, not all small scale producers join clubs or forums. many simply keep a hive and have done for many years, often these people rarely talk their hobby so it is extremely hard to know exactly how many hive/small producers are out there. With that said the same 'shy' Beek's still buy a treatment if they encounter a problem.

Finally....................

We (academia/industry) have and still do work with large scale producers, without them much of the current data would not be available. However to date limiting research to the larger operations has not resulted in ANY decline of the level of disease found. This is one reason research is now starting to focus and turn to the smaller producer, it would be illogical to continue down the same paths with the same results. More simply put.....As a research group we feel it's time to try a different approach.

I would like to apologize for the long post, but i would also like to say that so far i have been pleasantly surprised at the level of willingness from members here to offer to help, i think this alone justifies our decision to take this route.

Regards
Dr J.Bell

 

[Dr J.Bell]

.
What ever it will happen, it is good that British universities start to publish practical researchs. They are rare in internet.

And in my country, we have not a single ( or married) beekeeping researcher. Vain to ask what they have done.

It is not that they are rare, far from it. However in most cases the ones you would consider worthwhile are not open access to the general public and therefore expensive. To say good papers are rare on the internet is ridiculous, ALL scientific papers are available on the internet, i assume the comment was aimed at the FREELY available material? If you dont have academic access then I am afraid this may be a case of you get what you pay for.

 

[Vortex]

Conversely while the small scale producer has a more limited number of days to attend hives, the mean time spent inspecting a hive tends to be higher than that of a commercial operation. This often leads to quicker detection of problems, in a commercial operation of any meaningful size, there is often not the luxury of time to sit and watch Bees! Small scale producers are far more likely to 'Bee gaze!'.

Having 3 hives 10 feet from my back door .. that's certainly true

 

[enrico]

Dr bell, I take it you know about bee inspectors? They see many small scale bee keepers during a year and I feel sure they know which have the bad tempered ones ( bees not the beekeepers! )etc. They certainly could give you a daily run down of their findings!
Ignore me if you already have been told about them or know about them. Most do!
Good luck
E

 

[Dr J.Bell]

Dr bell, I take it you know about bee inspectors? They see many small scale bee keepers during a year and I feel sure they know which have the bad tempered ones ( bees not the beekeepers! )etc. They certainly could give you a daily run down of their findings!
Ignore me if you already have been told about them or know about them. Most do!
Good luck
E

We are working closely with several government departments and committees, we have held discussion with inspectors directly. The current consensus is to keep this voluntary and with as little red tape as we can. Involving the inspectorate also raises other issues, lets assume an inspector visits a hive and on the day it is aggressive. Now lets assume the keeper assures the inspector this is completely out of the ordinary, in this scenario what is the inspector supposed to do? If we involve them at this point then they would be obliged to act on what they see regardless of what the keeper tells them. Obviously this could be completely counter productive.

A great deal of work and thought has gone into how the various studies will be done, for the first phase or so we are trying to engage the small scale producer and get consensual involvement, in the long run this should prove far more effective. I doubt anyone would want an inspector to come around and announce he would like to take your queen for a study as it appears aggressive to him! This is one reason the research group has been set up in its current form. We are working with a university held company, this way we are able to operate under commercial rules and not a bureaucratic mess.

Once the studies are complete i am unsure what will happen, my hope is some policy changes and follow up research, the last thing i would want to see is legislation and red tape introduced before the problems are properly identified.

 

[sugarbush]

I personally would not be comfortable participating in the research you are attempting to collect a sample for.

For starters a biotech company isn't going to be conducting research that benefits anybody except their profit margins, hence your need to be abstruse about who you actually work for and what the nature of the research is.

That alone violates everything I have ever been taught about ethical research principles.

If I were to venture a guess I would go with Bayer as being the Bio-tech you are working for. It's a company that many of us would join in in the lynching of their research scientists if given an opportunity.

 

[BeeJayBee]

I am going to be blunt. ...

One final point Finman...

It's worth a try, but he'll probably expect to have the last word!

Thymol has been used since around 1916, because it was successful there has been a trend to lean towards......'If it aint broke, dont fix it', what should be kept in mind is other aromatic essential oils may well have the same/better effects than Thymol.

Any idea why the Romans (Varro) would have thought thyme was important for bees, other than as a crop?

For this reason some bruise thyme in a mortar and soak it in lukewarm water, and with this sprinkle all the plots planted for the bees​

 

[Dr J.Bell]

I personally would not be comfortable participating in the research you are attempting to collect a sample for.

For starters a biotech company isn't going to be conducting research that benefits anybody except their profit margins, hence your need to be abstruse about who you actually work for and what the nature of the research is.

That alone violates everything I have ever been taught about ethical research principles.

If I were to venture a guess I would go with Bayer as being the Bio-tech you are working for. It's a company that many of us would join in in the lynching of their research scientists if given an opportunity.

I have stated in several places exactly who i am working for, i also stated the company was set up to avoid a conflict of interest. The research is being done by Knockishee estate Biotechnology LTD. We are working in conjunction with a university. We also receive some money from the EU, the sole purpose of the daughter company i work for is research.

If you are uncomfortable in taking part i respect that, however i would like to make it clear this research is independent of ANY commercial considerations. The only reason i am not giving full details is purely to protect the integrity of the data we collect, if i were to publicly declare what we are looking for or suspect, then it could be claimed we had already influenced the data to fit our hypothesis.

My job is purely to oversee and run and the studies, it is my job to ensure the integrity of the data we collect. While i sincerely hope we can find some answers to some serious problems, the last thing that concerns me is a companies bottom line. Any study has to be paid for somehow, there are many mechanisms in doing this. Part of the reason we are working with a University is they often insist on taking part at there expense if the findings are made open source.

I think you under estimate how serious a problem the industry as a whole faces. It is in no ones interest to see Bees decline to point of collapse, those that do take part will be given all the necessary information, of course anyone is welcome to write to the above company and seek written assurance the study is completely independent of ANY commercial interest.

This particular study is mainly based around data collection, we do not have any products within the study. As a research group we do have several methods we wish to test the efficacy of, however the data would be freely available. My wages are paid by Knockishee estate biotechnology LTD, I am completely autonomous in the way the studies are conducted. I am also under no pressure to develop a product.

As far as I can see i have followed the correct protocol. I do however wonder why ANY Beek would be against helping a company solve a problem that could have extremely devastating consequences in the near future? Those that currently by treatments will buy the most effective they can find/afford, those that dont buy treatments will continue not to use them regardless of how effective.

Again no one is under any obligation to do anything, we are simply trying to take a different approach, if the motivation was monetary then i can assure you it would be far more likely to involve the larger producers as this is a much cheaper way.

I thank you for your honest reply, the only part i find slightly offensive is the intimation i am being less than honest. Just for the record, i agreed to join and head up the research because of my deep concern for the current state of the Beekeeping industry and the rapid decline of Bee populations. As a scientist I am extremely concerned for the future and the way things are going.

Before agreeing to join the company on a fixed term contract, i was working in academia, i have no affiliation to any company with a commercial interest.