Filipe Salbany- Somerset Beekeepers' Association online event

[Into the lions den]

Murray you really should have timed your Kent trip with more care….Evidently if you had gone in the summer you and jolanta could have skipped through the orchards hand in hand with gay abandon, simply gathering varroa resistant bees festooning the low hung bows! Perhaps you should inform those dastardly foreign breeders their work is in vain

LOL...that one would have got me a slap across the chops. Although Jolanta and I can argue like an old married couple at times, it comes from working together for almost 20 years and having similar ideals. Work partners we are...life partners not.

May be in Kent more often in the seasons ahead so will take some nice skeps and sheets with us and catch few of these wonder bees. (Plus all their local type varroa and brood disease strains.)

Also FWIW....during my trip I was talking to a commercial guy who places bees at and adjacent to Blenheim...lots of bees. He reckons there is a back story to this as there is strong influence going on from before this story about certain parties hoping to exclude honey bees entirely as the whole species is non native. Has been dealing with this issue there for a few seasons now...this *could* just be the latest gambit in a longer term game. Whilst honest enough to say he does not know what is going on he most definitely has his suspicious hat on.

Watch out for what happens when a conservationist rather than a beekeeper finds a feral colony living in a hole in a tree in a tiny patch of woodland near YOUR apiary...you might start to face a battle to keep it...or even continue beekeeping at all. I already come up against groups (several actually) claiming micro populations of unique wonder bees that MUST be conserved at all costs by excluding everyone else. Pick your reason...truth? fantasy? or perhaps a fictitious tactic (not wanting anyone else on what they want as exclusive territory).

What I CAN confirm in this thread is the tendency for bees to revert towards black native(ish) types. No matter how big our numbers in the area we DO get genetic inflow from local drones...not saying it does not also happen partially the other way too, but the local drones DO tend somewhat to dominate matings, so the battle against this and the descent into mediocrity is perpetual. That the drones dominate says *zero* about the desirability of this.

 

[madasafish]

I was pointing out that it isn't illogical to understand there are resistant bees in the UK, and that continuing imports are hampering the spread of resistance.

It's my understanding that every hive headed by an imported queen needs treatment. Perhaps you can tell me I'm wrong about that.

I have no practical experience since I don't use imported Queens.

But I would assume that imported Qs will come from areas with varroa so will inherit some resistance.

If they don't , then the inference is that UK queens are special and non UK don't inherit resistance which is - to put it very politely - rubbish.

 

[Ian123]

I have no practical experience since I don't use imported Queens.

But I would assume that imported Qs will come from areas with varroa so will inherit some resistance.

There is also a huge amount of breeding work done by various breeding groups….B+ shed quite some light on the various work done by one of these carnica groups. Plus a quick google reveals buckfast breeders working on tolerant traits. Very little serious work in the uk….the odd!!!!!!! Enthusiastic bloke and his dog in the garden shed

 

[Beesnaturally]

sound like another one of your unsubstantiated or corroborated 'theories'

See how many things you can list that might be buried out of sight in the ground.

When you you have found them all send us a list

 

[Beesnaturally]

"Reduced [mite] reproductive success in surviving Norwegian and Swedish colonies is not likely due to a more sensitive grooming threshold nor a higher level of brood removal (VSH). Neither of the tested traits seem to play a major role in local colony survival"

The paper offers the slightly contradictory conclusions that:

a) the secret is to have mites that reproduce at a low rate (i.e. it's the mites that matter, not the bees)

but also

b) rather than VSH or grooming, " different adult behaviours are likely sufficient to explain reduced V. destructor reproductive success and ultimately colony survival. These behaviours need to be identified."

So, not grooming, and not uncapping, but some unidentified attribute. This seems tenuous.

Perhaps natural selection in mites is what is really going on here, not natural selection in bees.

Of maybe it's just an inconclusive study.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

See how many things you can list that might be buried out of sight in the ground.

When you you have found them all send us a list

obfuscation and diversion - why don't you just answer Murray's question?

 

[Beesnaturally]

"Reduced [mite] reproductive success in surviving Norwegian and Swedish colonies is not likely due to a more sensitive grooming threshold nor a higher level of brood removal (VSH). Neither of the tested traits seem to play a major role in local colony survival"

The paper offers the slightly contradictory conclusions that:

a) the secret is to have mites that reproduce at a low rate (i.e. it's the mites that matter, not the bees)

but also

b) rather than VSH or grooming, " different adult behaviours are likely sufficient to explain reduced V. destructor reproductive success and ultimately colony survival. These behaviours need to be identified."

So, not grooming, and not uncapping, but some unidentified attribute. This seems tenuous.

Perhaps natural selection in mites is what is really going on here, not natural selection in bees.

Of maybe it's just an inconclusive study.

There is a growing understanding that bees in effect 'breed' low fecundity strains of mite by detecting and removing only those in cells with large numbers of infants.

I outlined this just a few days ago, as I'm sure you noticed.

The study has a firm conclusion: that in this study the treatment free bees were much better at removing mites than the controls. Like almost all scientific studies it ends with recommendations for further enquiry.

It is also entirely based on the Darwinian understanding that natural selection enables populations to adapt to changes in their environment, and that this is being prevented from happening by apiary practices.

 

[Beesnaturally]

And as we see these alleged 'success stories' of varroa resistant bees all over the world
Maybe importation should be encouraged

Of course not. There is no need, and to do so would invite more new pests and diseases.
I'm sure you already knew this.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

There is a growing understanding that bees in effect 'breed' low fecundity strains of mite

By whom?

 

[Beesnaturally]

Citations please to justify that remark. It is deeply insulting to the very fine and careful breeders out there who suffer from the dreadful stigma of *not being British*

One of the main suppliers into the UK in N Italy turns out 90000 VSH queens and queen cells per season to northern European markets from France as far up as Finland...and they have abundant testing to demonstrate their worth in combatting both varroa and brood diseases........but perhaps you are able to debunk this? All bred from northern stock for northern markets...including a line F25 that was sourced from US and tested very well in the programme.

Warning before firing back. I know the man personally and we have participated in their work...so unless you have a better weapon than mere supposition or 'by repute' type information don't bother.

These guys are light years ahead of us...and their bees work extremely well here.

Anyone who sells poor bees into the country does not do so for long!

That's interesting. How can we find out more?

 

[Boston Bees]

The study has a firm conclusion: that in this study the treatment free bees were much better at removing mites than the controls.

Where does it say that?

 

[Beesnaturally]

By whom?

The community of scientists and breeders who work in this field.

Before you ask for details, give me a little time. I'm going to assemble a list of the supportive literature and post it up. Then we can examine these issues with the science and experience to hand.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Where does it say that?

You have to learn how to read scientific papers. I'm not taking the trouble to show you things you can't find, and/or don't want to see.

 

[Boston Bees]

You have to learn how to read scientific papers. I'm not taking the trouble to show you things you can't find, and/or don't want to see.

Don't be rude. It's written in English and I have read it with interest twice.

My query is with your statement "The study has a firm conclusion: that in this study the treatment free bees were much better at removing mites than the controls."

In fact, the study clearly states that it is NOT grooming or uncapping (i.e. removing mites) that explains the difference in mite levels.

To quote the study again:

"Reduced [mite] reproductive success in surviving Norwegian and Swedish colonies is not likely due to a more sensitive grooming threshold nor a higher level of brood removal (VSH). Neither of the tested traits seem to play a major role in local colony survival"

The most plausible explanation of the survival of these colonies, based purely on this study, is that the mites in the survivor colonies are naturally less fecund than the mites in the control colony.

Consider the evidence presented in the study:

• The survivor colonies had the same (or even higher) levels of infestation in a randomly selected comb as the control colonies did
• But the inspection-board drop was significantly lower
• And the dead mites found did not have a significantly greater evidence of having their legs chewed (so no evidence of a grooming advantage)
• And there was no evidence of a greater level of uncapping by the bees
• What there WAS, was a significant difference in the number of daughter mites per "mother" (foundress) mite in each cell which the researchers uncapped. To quote: "The overall average mite reproductive success in surviving colonies was significantly reduced at 0.87 offspring per foundress whereas in susceptible colonies it was 1.24." We all know how much of a difference that "R number" can make .... So, the clear conclusion is - it's not the bees that are doing anything special, it's the mites that are genetically less fecund. If that's true more widely in "resistant" populations, it does have quite significant implications.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Don't be rude. It's written in English and I have read it with interest twice.

My query is with your statement "The study has a firm conclusion: that in this study the treatment free bees were much better at removing mites than the controls."

In fact, the study clearly states that it is NOT grooming or uncapping (i.e. removing mites) that explains the difference in mite levels.

To quote the study again:

"Reduced [mite] reproductive success in surviving Norwegian and Swedish colonies is not likely due to a more sensitive grooming threshold nor a higher level of brood removal (VSH). Neither of the tested traits seem to play a major role in local colony survival"

The most plausible explanation of the survival of these colonies, based purely on this study, is that the mites in the survivor colonies are naturally less fecund than the mites in the control colony.

Consider the evidence presented in the study:

• The survivor colonies had the same (or even higher) levels of infestation in a randomly selected comb as the control colonies did
• But the inspection-board drop was significantly lower
• And the dead mites found did not have a significantly greater evidence of having their legs chewed (so no evidence of a grooming advantage)
• And there was no evidence of a greater level of uncapping by the bees
• What there WAS, was a significant difference in the number of daughter mites per "mother" (foundress) mite in each cell which the researchers uncapped. To quote: "The overall average mite reproductive success in surviving colonies was significantly reduced at 0.87 offspring per foundress whereas in susceptible colonies it was 1.24." We all know how much of a difference that "R number" can make .... So, the clear conclusion is - it's not the bees that are doing anything special, it's the mites that are genetically less fecund. If that's true more widely in "resistant" populations, it does have quite significant implications.

Well done. You noted my little spreadsheet study on the other thread a few days ago, and put two and two together. Then you bought in the business of an 'r' number as the key indicator and something many people will relate to.

The authors even give the relevant figures, though, from memory they don't use that term.

So the question is what is making the mites less fecund?

 

[Mint Bee]

Most commercials producers will never do it. With their eyes firmly fixed on their bottom lines, they'll go on promoting the pharma narrative. Bee equipment suppliers will go on helping with that.

Beekeepers will go on believing the rubbish about it taking 2000 years to evolve resistance, that precious strains must be maintained at all cost, that by medicating the beekeeper is actually saving us all from starvation

Beesnaturally. From the Man made verses natural selection thread.

We did suggest there that you didn't know what you were talking about in relation to commercial beekeepers and breeders.
If you have not tried Murrays bees they are a pleasure to work with fro all beekeeping aspects, and there are plenty of other UK based queen importers and breeder looking to improve the quality of bees whether local, AMM or just good all-round hybrids.

to use my children's parlance, you have been roasted

 

[Boston Bees]

You noted my little spreadsheet study on the other thread a few days ago, and put two and two together.

No

The authors even give the relevant figures, though, from memory they don't use that term.

7 times ("Ctrl-F" is useful here)

So the question is what is making the mites less fecund?

Indeed. Clearly not the bees though, as that would be quite impossible. Natural selection of mites is certainly possible, with more fecund mites killing their host and thus (unless they can spread via robbing) themselves.

 

[Erichalfbee]

Indeed. Clearly not the bees though, as that would be quite impossible. Natural selection of mites is certainly possible, with more fecund mites killing their host and thus (unless they can spread via robbing) themselves.

Somebody else has mentioned the possibility of the mites evolving. This thread or the other one?

 

[Beesnaturally]

[QUOTE="Boston Bees, post: 811750, member: 20133"

Indeed. Clearly not the bees though, as that would be quite impossible. Natural selection of mites is certainly possible, with more fecund mites killing their host and thus (unless they can spread via robbing) themselves.
[/QUOTE]


Why would it be quite impossible to attribute the shift to less fecund mite strains to the bees?

 

[Boston Bees]

[QUOTE="Boston Bees, post: 811750, member: 20133"

Indeed. Clearly not the bees though, as that would be quite impossible. Natural selection of mites is certainly possible, with more fecund mites killing their host and thus (unless they can spread via robbing) themselves.

Why would it be quite impossible to attribute the shift to less fecund mite strains to the bees?
[/QUOTE]

How could the bees possible influence how many daughters a female mite has underneath the cappings of a cell?