Man made v natural breeding and selection

[Mint Bee]

About 60 at the present time. As it happens, yes.

I assume that's a set-up question. I have already said as much in this thread.

you still haven't answered the question. again.

I wanted to see if you were a large scale hobbiest or a commercial bee farmer?
If your are commercial it sounds like the business model of allowing non treatment and evolution of resistance is high risk if you relate to the rabbit model and the continued development of host and parasite impact to each other.

If you are a hobbiest, then your previous comments about anyone who keeps bees commercially are so far off the mark from my experience that I agree with IAN123, you don't know what you are talking about

 

[Beesnaturally]

Totally worthless due to the time it was written. Seem to remember he even dismissed the idea of what later became known as drone congregation areas.

Don't get me wrong, I like Manleys stuff - but nowhere near as much as I used to.

I expect you have a point. But most bee breeders beef up drone populations to help maintain their strains. Just as he did.

 

[Sanntos]

Totally worthless due to the time it was written.

I like to read a page or two in "Honey Farming" and I am sure most beekeepers, even experienced ones, has a lot to learn. He is a giant in beekeeping.

 

[Beesnaturally]

you still haven't answered the question. again.

I wanted to see if you were a large scale hobbiest or a commercial bee farmer?
If your are commercial it sounds like the business model of allowing non treatment and evolution of resistance is high risk if you relate to the rabbit model and the continued development of host and parasite impact to each other.

If you are a hobbiest, then your previous comments about anyone who keeps bees commercially are so far off the mark from my experience that I agree with IAN123, you don't know what you are talking about

Read what I've written. It's no good trying to explain anything to you when you ignore everything except what you think you can use as a stick to beat me.

Wasn't it you who said you weren't going to talk to me any more? If so, perhaps we can go back to that and everyone will breathe a sigh of relief.

 

[Erichalfbee]

If so, why are beekeepers not doing more to take advantage of it?

Some are surely. But getting there…. Is it commercially viable or even possible? Is it a hobbyists dream?

 

[Beesnaturally]

In Finland babies get nowadays 13 vaccinations under age of 1 year. No idea to mix this to natural selection.

Get to know natural selection first, then pose questions like that. (The easy answer is we moderns have pretty much learned how to evade natural selection. And that may well come back and bite us on the bum someday)

 

[Beesnaturally]

On a positive note, there is quite a bit of relevant discussion in this thread but it keeps getting off the path into the weeds along the way. I'd like to pose a question: Is there a scientific consensus that genetic resistance to varroa exists in the honeybee genome? If so, why are beekeepers not doing more to take advantage of it?

Yes, there is such a consensus. It is all but inconceivable that there wouldn't be - nobody in science doubts the most basic tenets of Darwinism, and a life-form that has existed for 20s of millions of years will be bound to be well equipped. And lots is known about the equipment itself ('known' here meaning scientifically accepted). But scientists, being cautious animals, will often say 'we don't know' until they have plenty of data and analysis to back up the statement, combined with paucity of contrary results.

Beekeepers, including commercials, appear to be poorly versed in natural selection, and have followed official advice. (That advice, now, is, in the UK anyway, to try to manage varroa while not feeding duff genes back in, but that is pretty tall order for many.) The easier and least risky option remains to slap in the dose whenever.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Some are surely. But getting there…. Is it commercially viable or even possible? Is it a hobbyists dream?

The answer is: how much do you want to try, and, how clever are you, and where are your bees in relation to others, of what sort, and how many hives do you have?

It's possible for some, with little investment. It's impossible for some with unlimited investment.

You can't know where you stand until you know about what makes the difference, and why. That, for most, means considerable investment in study time.

 

[rolande]

I like to read a page or two in "Honey Farming" and I am sure most beekeepers, even experienced ones, has a lot to learn. He is a giant in beekeeping.

I've enjoyed reading his books over the years but times and knowledge have moved on.

 

[elainemary]

The answer is: how much do you want to try, and, how clever are you, and where are your bees in relation to others, of what sort, and how many hives do you have?

It's possible for some, with little investment. It's impossible for some with unlimited investment.

You can't know where you stand until you know about what makes the difference, and why. That, for most, means considerable investment in study time.

I like the idea and tried hard to support one winter. I didn’t treat end of summer or winter but the varroa came back to haunt me in the spring and I had to treat as a choice vs letting the bees die. I think a lot of your theories are right and commendable and would work with hundreds / thousands of years of natural selection, but the crux is many of us do not want to see the death of our colonies

 

[Beesnaturally]

I've enjoyed reading his books over the years but times and knowledge have moved on.

If only. In Manley's day every farmer, farmhand, hunter, countryman, dog owner... understood the the precepts of breeding. There was discussion over the rights and wrongs of treating 'Isle of Wight disease' on exactly these grounds - which he speaks of in one of his books. The very notion of systematic prophylactic treatment of an open-mating animal would have been fought tooth and nail because the outcome would, for them, have been unacceptable, and they would have understand how robust the population was.

Nowadays few have a clue about any of this. They see vets treating pets and farm animals, and (having no idea of the notion of a closed breeding population) think it perfectly normal for bee diseases to be treated in the same way.

 

[Beesnaturally]

I like the idea and tried hard to support one winter. I didn’t treat end of summer or winter but the varroa came back to haunt me in the spring and I had to treat as a choice vs letting the bees die. I think a lot of your theories are right and commendable and would work with hundreds / thousands of years of natural selection, but the crux is many of us do not want to see the death of our colonies

The 'hundreds or thousands of years' notion is garbage. It's not your fault, but you have been fed rubbish.

As the scientific extract I posted yesterday makes clear, adapting takes just a few years. If, and only if, you allow the sick genes to be terminated.

Think breeding population. That's the route to understanding.

None of that makes your decision wrong. Wrong bees, wrong place, and you have no choice.

 

[Erichalfbee]

I like the idea and tried hard to support one winter. I didn’t treat end of summer or winter but the varroa came back to haunt me in the spring and I had to treat as a choice vs letting the bees die. I think a lot of your theories are right and commendable and would work with hundreds / thousands of years of natural selection, but the crux is many of us do not want to see the death of our colonies

Well you don’t let them die. If they are not up to scratch just give them away to somebody who keeps bees far away from you. Treat them then give them away.

 

[Wilco]

I couldn't think of any more suitable. I'm just trying to put across a simple picture - because that is what it. Natural selection, within, yes of course a population, is the whole nine yards. But adding in the arms race part is I think useful. Unfortunately that only makes sense to those who have grip on natural selection first.

I try not to get sidetracked by technical details. The simple core ideas, and how they relate to beekeeping are what are needed. Then more detail can be added to the basic frame.

Can you come up with a simple and clear explanation, with or without analogies for those folks struggling to make sense of it?

Putting across a simple picture isn't helpful if it's inaccurate though. That will only undermine what you're trying to say. Unfortunately the devil is in the detail.

In terms of examples, I'd probably want proof of concept before trying to convince anyone with what is at this point, just what some complete stranger on the internet is claiming (no insult intended but I've never met you). Bee breeding is much more complex than in the domestic species, and host-parasite interactions are different again. Once you have facts and data to prove it (from a scientific perspective, at present you've just given anecdote which is considered one of the lowest levels of the evidence hierarchy), then worry about trying to get your proposed explanation across.

For the host-adaptation perspective, I can see the potential logic in extrapolating the concept of it being advantageous for a parasite not to kill their host as they are killed off too, thus there being a selection pressure for mite which are present at lower levels so the colony doesn't die out and the mites survive. However, I don't think this is definitely going to happen as mites are not confined to a single colony- I'm not sure the logic follows through.

• You may see it happen a little but all it takes is arrival in any given colony of a mite with higher fecundity and it will reproduce faster than the version present thus outcompete them and become the dominant strain.
• The bees with more fecund mites will have a higher mite burden and be more likely to spread it to other colonies so even if the original colony dies out, the higher fecundity mite has already spread elsewhere thus survives.
• Likewise lower fecundity mites would infest bees at lower levels thus be less likely to spread, or spread less rapidly than the high fecundity one.
• I struggle to accept the concept that bees culture lower fecundity mites - if they were that capable of recognising mites and controlling mite reproduction then surely they would be able to stop it entirely.

Anyway, based on the above, if a lower fecundity version starts, I suspect it would be rapidly outcompeted. Still mulling it over though.

I'm going to continue advising caution generally- your default response to a lot of other posters in this discussion seems to be to tell them they don't understand 'x'. From discussion with them previously and reading through their posts, I'd suggest they have a fairly good handle on topics such as natural selection and the stumbling block is more a disagreement with your opinion/reasoning than a lack of understanding of scientific concepts. Also questioning whether someone is a creationist looks like a personal attack rather than scientific discussion...

 

[Beesnaturally]

Putting across a simple picture isn't helpful if it's inaccurate though. That will only undermine what you're trying to say. Unfortunately the devil is in the detail.

In terms of examples, I'd probably want proof of concept before trying to convince anyone with what is at this point, just what some complete stranger on the internet is claiming (no insult intended but I've never met you). Bee breeding is much more complex than in the domestic species, and host-parasite interactions are different again. Once you have facts and data to prove it (from a scientific perspective, at present you've just given anecdote which is considered one of the lowest levels of the evidence hierarchy), then worry about trying to get your proposed explanation across.

For the host-adaptation perspective, I can see the potential logic in extrapolating the concept of it being advantageous for a parasite not to kill their host as they are killed off too, thus there being a selection pressure for mite which are present at lower levels so the colony doesn't die out and the mites survive. However, I don't think this is definitely going to happen as mites are not confined to a single colony- I'm not sure the logic follows through.

• You may see it happen a little but all it takes is arrival in any given colony of a mite with higher fecundity and it will reproduce faster than the version present thus outcompete them and become the dominant strain.
• The bees with more fecund mites will have a higher mite burden and be more likely to spread it to other colonies so even if the original colony dies out, the higher fecundity mite has already spread elsewhere thus survives.
• Likewise lower fecundity mites would infest bees at lower levels thus be less likely to spread, or spread less rapidly than the high fecundity one.
• I struggle to accept the concept that bees culture lower fecundity mites - if they were that capable of recognising mites and controlling mite reproduction then surely they would be able to stop it entirely.

Anyway, based on the above, if a lower fecundity version starts, I suspect it would be rapidly outcompeted. Still mulling it over though.

I'm going to continue advising caution generally- your default response to a lot of other posters in this discussion seems to be to tell them they don't understand 'x'. From discussion with them previously and reading through their posts, I'd suggest they have a fairly good handle on topics such as natural selection and the stumbling block is more a disagreement with your opinion/reasoning than a lack of understanding of scientific concepts. Also questioning whether someone is a creationist looks like a personal attack rather than scientific discussion...

That sort of essay is exactly what I want to avoid. The key to getting concepts across is to take the key principle and make sure that is well understood before building on it. And, luckily, the core principle is easily stated, and, for most people, understandable. It's right there in Darwin's descriptive phrase: Natural selection for the fittest strains.

See if you can flesh that out in fifty words such that a beginner can grasp the essential point

 

[rolande]

That sort of essay is exactly what I want to avoid

This *is* meant in good humour, having read a few of your posts, I can't help but laugh at this latest comment.

 

[Wilco]

That sort of essay is exactly what I want to avoid. The key to getting concepts across is to take the key principle and make sure that is well understood before building on it. And, luckily, the core principle is easily stated, and, for most people, understandable. It's right there in Darwin's descriptive phrase: Natural selection for the fittest strains.

See if you can flesh that out in fifty words such that a beginner can grasp the essential point

You want to avoid accuracy for the sake of a pet idea? (12 words).

I've actually tried to engage with what you're saying, as you've asked people to in this thread. Rather than do the same, you've basically ignored what I've said because it doesn't fit with what you believe. That's not scientific, it's not rational argument and it's not good manners. If that is your approach then quite frankly you deserve all the flippant remarks people have made.

Fittest is an incredibly subjective concept. It is a balance of ability to cope with multiple selection pressures not just one. One could argue that the fittest bees are the ones which are exploiting pro-treatment beekeepers as then they don't have to cope with varroa. But there's probably no genetic basis for that.

At present, you have an idea. You need facts. As in something like 'fecundity of varroa in x number of long term surviving untreated hives was compared to x number of treated hives by measuring the number of juveniles in y many randomly selected capped worker/drone cells, adjusting for varroal load, calculated based on data from sugar rolls for the colonies tested and with all othr husbandry and variables controlled for', followed by statistical analysis to see if there is a difference and whether it's a significant difference. Ideally then followed by genotypic analysis to show whether there is a genetic basis for any difference.

Once you have data, then start worrying about convincing people of its veracity. At present you have anecdata, not data.

If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing properly.

 

[Bazzer]

I like the idea and tried hard to support one winter. I didn’t treat end of summer or winter but the varroa came back to haunt me in the spring and I had to treat as a choice vs letting the bees die. I think a lot of your theories are right and commendable and would work with hundreds / thousands of years of natural selection, but the crux is many of us do not want to see the death of our colonies

I am interested how you can go from making a one year unsuccessful trial to saying that it would take hundreds/thousands of years of evolution? Do you not believe that if you had hundred/thousands of colonies some of them would be resistant now?

 

[Beesnaturally]

Wilco, for some reason the quote won't work for me, so I have italicized you.

(MB) "See if you can flesh that out in fifty words such that a beginner can grasp the essential point"

You want to avoid accuracy for the sake of a pet idea? (12 words).

Natural selection for the fittest strains is not a pet idea. It is a painstakingly assembled descriptive title for what is accepted as foundational across all life sciences.

It describes the mechanism for both the origins of species, and for ongoing evolutionary change, including importantly, the maintenance of health.

It was perfectly descriptive when Darwin published, long before anyone knew anything about genes. And it remains so. So much so that a scientific paper can say:

" As natural selection is the key mechanism of evolution, it will enable any given stock of managed honeybees, irrespective of habitat (agro‐ecosystems, nature reserves, etc.) and/or genetic background (endemic, imported, “pure” breeding lines, hybrids [e.g., Buckfast], etc.) to adapt to each and every stressor as long as the ability to cope with the stressor has a genetic basis so that the respective heritable traits can change in this population over time. "

It tells a whole story in itself: it supplies the key explanation upon which all else is built.

Your unwillingness to accept my invitation to make a short account of what is being said in that short phrase leads me to think you can't. So now it's a challenge. Let get this nailed down before we go any further, both for the sake of a clear understanding between ourselves, and for others to contemplate.

And I'll throw that challenge open to anyone. Make a short explanation of what is conveyed in that expression that can be understood by a complete beginner.

 

[rolande]

I'm really not sure why there's a need for wilco to repeat himself in fewer words, I'm pretty sure that most of us are happy to read his posts as he choses to write them. One thing for sure, a couple of wilco's contributions stand out head and shoulders above the rest of this thread.