Non-interventionalist beekeeping?

[user 6228]

Untreated Varroa and DWV isnt a sufficent condition for colony extinction. There are too many documented instances of it not happening. I ve had instances of it here.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Queens have been known to lay for five years period - Manley mentions one queen he had which survived for six most of the literature stating this doesn't mention whether the colony was treated for varroa or not (in Manleys case he had never had varroa.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Untreated Varroa and DWV isnt a sufficent condition for colony extinction.

But it can be
We have a duty to our charges of giving them the best chance of survival IPM is one of these whether it's OA, thymol, drone harvesting, or RAB's methods it's still varroa control.

 

[Chris Luck]

Untreated Varroa and DWV isnt a sufficent condition for colony extinction. There are too many documented instances of it not happening. I ve had instances of it here.

Spot on!!!!! My bees are the living proof and there are many, many others including feral colonies where colony duration is exactly what one would expect in a natural situation without varroa.

Varroa is just a tad too easy an excuse for colony demise or for slapping artificial treatments in hives.

Chris

 

[Dishmop]

Varroa is just a tad too easy an excuse for colony demise or for slapping artificial treatments in hives.

believing it is a "must do" thing, or else the colony will die.

Example post.

I have just got my first swarm of bees. What do I need to do?

Answer: Treat for varroa, they will be infested.

 

[Skyhook]

Spot on!!!!! My bees are the living proof and there are many, many others including feral colonies where colony duration is exactly what one would expect in a natural situation without varroa.

Varroa is just a tad too easy an excuse for colony demise or for slapping artificial treatments in hives.

Chris

And yet... we know that varroa causes severe harm. When it first arrived it drove many beekeepers out of beekeeping as colonies crashed, and they did not have the knowledge or experience to deal with it.

There does seem to be a body of evidence building that some bees, under some conditions, can cope with it, and it's good that there are people willing to risk colonies to analyse this. But if I want the best chance of keeping healthy colonies, I know that routine treatment must, at present, be my first concern, and I will continue to advise others accordingly.

.

 

[Gilberdyke John]

And yet... we know that varroa causes severe harm. When it first arrived it drove many beekeepers out of beekeeping as colonies crashed, and they did not have the knowledge or experience to deal with it.

There does seem to be a body of evidence building that some bees, under some conditions, can cope with it, and it's good that there are people willing to risk colonies to analyse this. But if I want the best chance of keeping healthy colonies, I know that routine treatment must, at present, be my first concern, and I will continue to advise others accordingly.

.

I wonder what the neighbouring beeks think of those willing to risk colonies?

 

[Chris Luck]

I wonder what the neighbouring beeks think of those willing to risk colonies?

Your having a laugh, yes?

My bees get 10 out of 10 from the inspector which by his own admission isn't what some of keepers round here that treat their bees get.

Chris

 

[sunhivebee]

Spot on!!!!! My bees are the living proof and there are many, many others including feral colonies where colony duration is exactly what one would expect in a natural situation without varroa.

Varroa is just a tad too easy an excuse for colony demise or for slapping artificial treatments in hives.

Chris

So true! It is not in the general interest of parasites to wipe out their hosts. But it is very much in the beekeeper's interest to avoid introducing stressors to the host which render it less resilient to withstand parasite attack.
It is painful to have varroa consistently, and in my view, erroneously accorded terrorist status when in actual fact that there are a host of other stressors one might examine which lead to reduced fitness and vitality.

 

[MandF]

So true! It is not in the general interest of parasites to wipe out their hosts. But it is very much in the beekeeper's interest to avoid introducing stressors to the host which render it less resilient to withstand parasite attack.
It is painful to have varroa consistently, and in my view, erroneously accorded terrorist status when in actual fact that there are a host of other stressors one might examine which lead to reduced fitness and vitality.

Absolutely right, except varroa has evolved to be a parasite on apis cerana, which can tolerate it for several reasons.

Unlike apis mellifera unless they have a particular genetic trait, like more grooming/cleaning than is usual.

Can you list those other significant stressors (and presumably virus vectors) which we can examine, and more importantly, manage as beekeepers?

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

here goes.
I'm taking a stance of non-interventionalism on this post!

 

[MandF]

I guess an analogy we can use to focus the discussion, in relation to varroa being a vector for viruses, is humans and mosquitos.

Not every human who gets bitten by a mosquito will get malaria. Some will. If the treatment for malaria were, say, a twice-yearly injection, would people still be advocating a non-interventionalist approach to malaria treatment? Because they have been regularly bitten but are still ok?

Would people be suggesting the injections are cruel, or shouldnt be administered because they are unnatural?

I dont get it. I treat my cats for fleas and worms. The fleas and worms wont necessarily kill them, but I consider it MORE caring to treat them, not less caring.

 

[Dishmop]

Can you list those other significant stressors (and presumably virus vectors) which we can examine, and more importantly, manage as beekeepers?

I hope so considering that she runs a charity for bee health.

 

[user 6228]

I guess an analogy we can use to focus the discussion, in relation to varroa being a vector for viruses, is humans and mosquitos.

Not every human who gets bitten by a mosquito will get malaria. Some will. If the treatment for malaria were, say, a twice-yearly injection, would people still be advocating a non-interventionalist approach to malaria treatment? Because they have been regularly bitten but are still ok?

Would people be suggesting the injections are cruel, or shouldnt be administered because they are unnatural?

I dont get it. I treat my cats for fleas and worms. The fleas and worms wont necessarily kill them, but I consider it MORE caring to treat them, not less caring.

however the treatments for varroa are giving 70% 80% varroa population reduction. This merely selects for fast breeding varroa. Given that, I will concentrate on giving the bees higher survivability from the varroa and the diseases they carry and wait for a 99.9% treatment.

 

[Skyhook]

I hope so considering that she runs a charity for bee health.

So do I. One donor, 250,000 recipients.

.

 

[MandF]

however the treatments for varroa are giving 70% 80% varroa population reduction. This merely selects for fast breeding varroa. Given that, I will concentrate on giving the bees higher survivability from the varroa and the diseases they carry and wait for a 99.9% treatment.

I dont understand the logic there?

Oxalic treatment doesnt fail to work on fast breeding varroa?

And as far as I know, IPM doesnt result in more and more varroa as time goes on?

 

[MandF]

In relation to selective breeding, one could argue that by leaving the bees to get on with dealing with varroa we are selecting overly grooming bees - time spent grooming when they could be doing other things within the colony?

Or selecting bees which have a shorter lifespan, due to the (survivable) stresses varroa is putting on them?

I think the idea that there is some genetic trait in apis mellifera which somehow allows a non-harmful coexistance with varroa is flawed from the outset.

 

[user 6228]

In relation to selective breeding, one could argue that by leaving the bees to get on with dealing with varroa we are selecting overly grooming bees - time spent grooming when they could be doing other things within the colony?

Or selecting bees which have a shorter lifespan, due to the (survivable) stresses varroa is putting on them?

I think the idea that there is some genetic trait in apis mellifera which somehow allows a non-harmful coexistance with varroa is flawed from the outset.

no the trait to select for is in the varroa.

However, bees , do have anti varoa behavoirs and traits as they inject varoa with a venom (2n Heptanone) when they bite them.

Having bees in cluster for most of the year is going to preclude this biting of varroa. So I'm allowing my bees more time out of cluster, in fact I'm making clustering optional even in harshest winters we have here.

 

[user 6228]

The biggest Intervention is:

Forcing bees to cluster when the outside temp goes below 7C. This is a purely man driven thing from having convienent materials (recycled or otherwise).
A true non-interventionist would allow bees to choose when to cluster by providing a nest at least as insulated as a tree.

 

[MandF]

Which traits in varroa make them harmless to apis mellifera?

And I think one of the main issues we have is that unless everyone does the same thing at once, it doesnt matter if you somehow select cuddly varroa, it only takes a few robbers/drifters to reinfect your hives with the nasty ones, and they will take a hold again. Ad infinitum.

Also, of course, you will need to be sure every queen you have is from the same stock, and is selectively mated, or else you will lose those genetic traits.


There is an issue with the whole biting thing, in that they need to get hold of the little buggers to bite them in the first place. Varroa 'hide' on the back of bees so they cannot be groomed off.