Treatment Free doesn't work

[Erichalfbee]

So, can we conclude that whatever Beesnaturally is doing to his bees seems to work in part for him and the suggestion might be that if others tried similar management it might work for them. How much of a suggestion that his bees might work for another beekeeper elsewhere is there though ?

 

[Beesnaturally]

Yes his work has been posted, small nest cavities and frequent swarms was the mechanism of varroa control. Not necessarily bees developing resistance. I’m sure there was some work that removed these bees and found they succumbed as readily as any others, when removed from that environment. Like most beekeeper claims of tolerance, other reasons or beekeeper management is the factor of varroa control…

You may find this of interest: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00891495/document

 

[Ian123]

You may find this of interest: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00891495/document

Out of date and not really relevant?

 

[Beesnaturally]

Yes his work has been posted, small nest cavities and frequent swarms was the mechanism of varroa control. Not necessarily bees developing resistance. I’m sure there was some work that removed these bees and found they succumbed as readily as any others, when removed from that environment. Like most beekeeper claims of tolerance, other reasons or beekeeper management is the factor of varroa control…

I've added this one because its relevant: but I also wish to draw attention to the following paragraph:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13592-015-0355-0
"The survival of the honeybee colonies living in and around the Arnot Forest may reflect strong natural selection for disease-resistant bees in these colonies, or strong natural selection for avirulent mites and viruses within these colonies, or both. Strong selection for resistance and avirulence is more likely for colonies living in nature versus in apiculture. Colonies living in the wild rely on their inherent abilities to resist diseases, which drive selection for disease resistance, whereas colonies kept by beekeepers often receive antibiotic or pesticide treatments, which blunt selection for disease resistance."

That is a scientist citing evolutionary 'theory' in support of his proposition. If you read carefully you'll see that there is no element of uncertainty about the statement I have emboldened. The 'may' that is present above it does not relate in any way to the proposition as emboldened. It is simply presented as fact - and that is understood by any reader familiar with the role of evolutionary mechanisms in natural populations.

That is the scientific understanding. This matter is totally accepted, to be completely universal law. That means it happens every time, everywhere.

Can we have no more argument about the validity of the proposition that: "antibiotic or pesticide treatments [] blunt selection for disease resistance"

And (going one logical step further) no more argument about this blunting being damaging to the development of self-sufficiency in wild/feral populations?

 

[user 20297]

I've added this one because its relevant: but I also wish to draw attention to the following paragraph:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13592-015-0355-0
"The survival of the honeybee colonies living in and around the Arnot Forest may reflect strong natural selection for disease-resistant bees in these colonies, or strong natural selection for avirulent mites and viruses within these colonies, or both. Strong selection for resistance and avirulence is more likely for colonies living in nature versus in apiculture. Colonies living in the wild rely on their inherent abilities to resist diseases, which drive selection for disease resistance, whereas colonies kept by beekeepers often receive antibiotic or pesticide treatments, which blunt selection for disease resistance."

That is a scientist citing evolutionary 'theory' in support of his proposition. If you read carefully you'll see that there is no element of uncertainty about the statement I have emboldened. The 'may' that is present does not relate in any way to the proposition as emboldened. It is simply presented as fact - and that is understood by any reader familiar with the role of evolutionary mechanisms in natural populations.

That is the scientific understanding. This matter is totally accepted, to be completely universal law. That means it happens every time, everywhere.

Can we have no more argument about the validity of the proposition that: "antibiotic or pesticide treatments [] blunt selection for disease resistance"

And (going one logical step further) no more argument about this blunting being damaging to the development of self-sufficiency in wild/feral populations?

Just keep copy and pasting that highlighted sentence until everyone has read it and processed what it means.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Out of date and not really relevant?

You are a quick reader!

Science doesn't date - although findings can be (and generally are) supported or otherwise by further studies.

What is shows is that the outhcome of this scientific study was that bees bred for behaviours geared to disease and pest management achieved their goal. In particular there was a significant reduction in mite numbers (compared to the controls).

I think that's relevant.

Perhaps you can show us studies that undercut these findings.

Its funny how people scream for science, but when the science shows them something they don't want to see there is something wrong with it!

Its as good as those who claim science is rubbish, except when a study comes along that supports their preferences. Then its the gold standard!

 

[Ian123]

First off could you point us in the direction of these thriving wild populations that you quoted several posts ago. I did ask for any reference’s and you sent some non relevant links.
Science does certainly date as more reliable/relevant assessment criteria are used. I didn’t find any relevant points in regard to the previous wild! Bee posts, and in summary at the end it claims few commercial breeders are using hygienic and we can also say VSH queens. Clearly not the case today!
As to me digging out any papers, why do I need to or what point do I need to prove?

 

[Mint Bee]

]

Its funny how people scream for science, but when the science shows them something they don't want to see there is something wrong with it!

Its as good as those who claim science is rubbish, except when a study comes along that supports their preferences. Then its the gold standard!

funny, I sure I've seen an example of this recently. Cant for the life of me remember who it was.

 

[Beesnaturally]

funny, I sure I've seen an example of this recently. Cant for the life of me remember who it was.

Is that what you call an insinuation?

(That's an invitation to substantiation btw - lack of will be widely read as a case of bs)

 

[Ian123]

“'Intrinsic maladaptation'? I'd call it simple, predictable, adapting. Its what happens when you leave populations alone. Evolution works: you get small, swarmy 'survivor' colonies, then larger and more stable ones, and finally a thriving natural population.”

I did ask if you could point us to some part of the world that this has taken place!

 

[Beesnaturally]

First off could you point us in the direction of these thriving wild populations that you quoted several posts ago. I did ask for any reference’s and you sent some non relevant links.
Science does certainly date as more reliable/relevant assessment criteria are used. I didn’t find any relevant points in regard to the previous wild! Bee posts, and in summary at the end it claims few commercial breeders are using hygienic and we can also say VSH queens. Clearly not the case today!
As to me digging out any papers, why do I need to or what point do I need to prove?

Is that 'first off', or 'do this and then we can forget about the awkward fact that you've just shown how you can not read a paper then say its irrelevant and out of date'. When its neither.

I accept it wasn't all that well targeted. Here's one that is better matched to your question: Life-history traits of wild honey bee colonies living in forests around Ithaca, NY, USA - Apidologie

You need to go to the site and follow up the references . An extract from the Introduction (2016):

Introduction
Starting in 1952 in Europe and in 1987 in North America, colonies of the hive honey bee (Apis mellifera) became infested with an ectoparasitic mite (Varroa destructor) (reviewed by Locke 2016). Researchers found that if a colony of European-derived honey bees is not treated for V. destructor, then in a year or two, the colony’s mite population will surge, the bees’ virus titers will skyrocket, and the colony will die (Korpela et al. 1992; Fries et al. 2006). It was widely believed, therefore, that the wild colonies of European-derived honey bees living in Europe and North America had perished (Moritz et al. 2007; Potts et al. 2010).
In the mid 2000s, however, reports began to surface from Europe and North America of populations of wild colonies of European-derived honey bees that are surviving despite being infested with V. destructor: Sweden (Fries et al. 2006), France (Le Conte et al. 2007), and the USA (Seeley 2007). A balanced relationship between honey bees and V. destructor is expected wherever most colonies are living wild because in these places, there should be strong natural selection for mite-resistant bees, and maybe also for avirulent pathogens and parasites. The expectation of strong natural selection on the bees was confirmed recently by a study (Mikheyev et al. 2015) of the wild honey bees living around Ithaca, NY. It used whole-genome sequencing of bees collected from wild colonies in 1977 (before arrival of V. destructor) and in 2011 (after arrival of V. destructor) and found that 232 nuclear genes scattered throughout the genome underwent strong selection between the sampling dates. This study also found that these bees experienced a collapse in effective population size between 1977 and 2011, probably the result of massive colony mortality following the arrival of V. destructor in the mid 1990s. The census population size has, however, recovered (Seeley 2007).

 

[Beesnaturally]

“'Intrinsic maladaptation'? I'd call it simple, predictable, adapting. Its what happens when you leave populations alone. Evolution works: you get small, swarmy 'survivor' colonies, then larger and more stable ones, and finally a thriving natural population.”

I did ask if you could point us to some part of the world that this has taken place!

Another. I'm using the search string: "wild honey bee populations"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10841-012-9528-6
An oblique confirmation, abstract only:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10841-007-9078-5
A set of links from the referenece below:

"" 1. Introduction The western honey bee, Apis mellifera Linnaeus, 1758, is recognized as the single most important pollinator species, vital to the success of modern agriculture and the stability of human food production [1–5], let alone the provisioning of honey and other bee-products. There is a worldwide concern regarding the trends of its populations, including various health issues and maintenance of sufficient pollination ecosystem service [3,6–14]. In the last two decades, numerous studies identified several factors that negatively affect honey bee populations and beekeeping [7,15–17]. Among other factors, the exotic ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor (hereafter: Varroa) is considered the most significant threat to western honey bee in many parts of the world [18–23], largely contributing to widespread colony losses [24,25]. There is a widely accepted view that unmanaged (wild/feral) honey bee populations were completely eradicated in Europe since the 1980s, following the introduction and spread of Varroa and the associated spillover of various pathogens [26,27]. However, several studies reported that both feral and managed colonies can survive for an extended period despite of Varroa infestation, and without receiving any treatments, triggering wide scientific and public attention [28–37]."

28. Le Conte, Y.; de Vaublanc, G.; Crauser, D.; Jeanne, F.; Rousselle, J.-C.; Bécard, J.-M. Honey Bee Colonies that Have Survived Varroa destructor. Apidologie 2007, 38, 566–572. [CrossRef]
29. Seeley, T.D. Honey Bees of the Arnot Forest: A Population of Feral Colonies Persisting with Varroa destructor in the Northeastern United States. Apidologie 2007, 38, 19–29. [CrossRef]
30. Seeley, T.D. Life-History Traits of Wild Honey Bee Colonies Living in Forests Around Ithaca, NY, USA. Apidologie 2017, 48, 743–754. [CrossRef]
31. Seeley, T.D.; Tarpy, D.R.; Griffin, S.R.; Carcione, A.; Delaney, D.A. A Survivor Population of Wild Colonies of European Honeybees in the Northeastern United States: Investigating Its Genetic Structure. Apidologie 2015, 46, 654–666. [CrossRef]
32. Rinderer, T.E.; De Guzman, L.I.; Delatte, G.T.; Stelzer, J.A.; Lancaster, V.A.; Kuznetsov, V.; Beaman, L.; Watts, R.; Harris, J.W. Resistance to the Parasitic Mite Varroa destructor in Honey Bees from Far-Eastern Russia. Apidologie 2001, 32, 381–394. [CrossRef]
33. Fries, I.; Imdorf, A.; Rosenkranz, P. Survival of Mite Infested (Varroa destructor) Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Colonies in a Nordic Climate. Apidologie 2006, 37, 564–570. [CrossRef]
34. De Jong, D.; Soares, A.E.E. An Isolated Population of Italian Bees that Has Survived Varroa jacobsoni Infestation without Treatment for over 12 Years. Am. Bee J. 1997, 137, 742–745.
35. Locke, B.; Fries, I. Characteristics of Honey Bee Colonies (Apis mellifera) in Sweden Surviving Varroa destructor Infestation. Apidologie 2011, 42, 533–542. [CrossRef]
36. Kohl, P.L.; Rutschmann, B. The Neglected Bee Trees: European Beech Forests as a Home for Feral Honey Bee Colonies. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4602. [CrossRef]
37. Locke, B.; Le Conte, Y.; Crauser, D.; Fries, I. Host Adaptations Reduce the Reproductive Success of Varroa destructor in Two Distinct European Honey Bee Populations. Ecol. Evol. 2012, 2, 1144–1150. [CrossRef]

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/12/12/1127/pdf

 

[BugsInABox]

Can we have no more argument about the validity of the proposition that: "antibiotic or pesticide treatments blunt selection for disease resistance"

Has anyone in fact argued against the validity of this statement?
It's the inferences you draw that are problematic - such as what you think you're observing (in the feild and your reviews of literature) must be such and such because it makes theoretical sense. In other words that your experiences prove something, they don't. They are just, all be it interesting, observations and experiences which may give weight to particualr ideas.

I supect you end up in such heated debates because you insist your preffered explanations are correct - rather than might be correct. Unless of course you enjoy the heated nature of the debates you create. Anyway that's my theory (I could of course be wrong )

 

[BugsInABox]

Another. I'm using the search string: "wild honey bee populations"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10841-012-9528-6
An oblique confirmation, abstract only:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10841-007-9078-5
A set of links from the referenece below:

"" 1. Introduction The western honey bee, Apis mellifera Linnaeus, 1758, is recognized as the single most important pollinator species, vital to the success of modern agriculture and the stability of human food production [1–5], let alone the provisioning of honey and other bee-products. There is a worldwide concern regarding the trends of its populations, including various health issues and maintenance of sufficient pollination ecosystem service [3,6–14]. In the last two decades, numerous studies identified several factors that negatively affect honey bee populations and beekeeping [7,15–17]. Among other factors, the exotic ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor (hereafter: Varroa) is considered the most significant threat to western honey bee in many parts of the world [18–23], largely contributing to widespread colony losses [24,25]. There is a widely accepted view that unmanaged (wild/feral) honey bee populations were completely eradicated in Europe since the 1980s, following the introduction and spread of Varroa and the associated spillover of various pathogens [26,27]. However, several studies reported that both feral and managed colonies can survive for an extended period despite of Varroa infestation, and without receiving any treatments, triggering wide scientific and public attention [28–37]."

28. Le Conte, Y.; de Vaublanc, G.; Crauser, D.; Jeanne, F.; Rousselle, J.-C.; Bécard, J.-M. Honey Bee Colonies that Have Survived Varroa destructor. Apidologie 2007, 38, 566–572. [CrossRef]
29. Seeley, T.D. Honey Bees of the Arnot Forest: A Population of Feral Colonies Persisting with Varroa destructor in the Northeastern United States. Apidologie 2007, 38, 19–29. [CrossRef]
30. Seeley, T.D. Life-History Traits of Wild Honey Bee Colonies Living in Forests Around Ithaca, NY, USA. Apidologie 2017, 48, 743–754. [CrossRef]
31. Seeley, T.D.; Tarpy, D.R.; Griffin, S.R.; Carcione, A.; Delaney, D.A. A Survivor Population of Wild Colonies of European Honeybees in the Northeastern United States: Investigating Its Genetic Structure. Apidologie 2015, 46, 654–666. [CrossRef]
32. Rinderer, T.E.; De Guzman, L.I.; Delatte, G.T.; Stelzer, J.A.; Lancaster, V.A.; Kuznetsov, V.; Beaman, L.; Watts, R.; Harris, J.W. Resistance to the Parasitic Mite Varroa destructor in Honey Bees from Far-Eastern Russia. Apidologie 2001, 32, 381–394. [CrossRef]
33. Fries, I.; Imdorf, A.; Rosenkranz, P. Survival of Mite Infested (Varroa destructor) Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Colonies in a Nordic Climate. Apidologie 2006, 37, 564–570. [CrossRef]
34. De Jong, D.; Soares, A.E.E. An Isolated Population of Italian Bees that Has Survived Varroa jacobsoni Infestation without Treatment for over 12 Years. Am. Bee J. 1997, 137, 742–745.
35. Locke, B.; Fries, I. Characteristics of Honey Bee Colonies (Apis mellifera) in Sweden Surviving Varroa destructor Infestation. Apidologie 2011, 42, 533–542. [CrossRef]
36. Kohl, P.L.; Rutschmann, B. The Neglected Bee Trees: European Beech Forests as a Home for Feral Honey Bee Colonies. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4602. [CrossRef]
37. Locke, B.; Le Conte, Y.; Crauser, D.; Fries, I. Host Adaptations Reduce the Reproductive Success of Varroa destructor in Two Distinct European Honey Bee Populations. Ecol. Evol. 2012, 2, 1144–1150. [CrossRef]

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/12/12/1127/pdf

BN - even the author of the full study posted doesn't claim the study conclusion you are.

Ian asked
"
“'Intrinsic maladaptation'? I'd call it simple, predictable, adapting. Its what happens when you leave populations alone. Evolution works: you get small, swarmy 'survivor' colonies, then larger and more stable ones, and finally a thriving natural population.”

I did ask if you could point us to some part of the world that this has taken place!
"

The study you provided in answer doesnt do that. It reports ferrel bees in low densities in some tree hollows in Poland. You've drawn some inferences, and worse invited us to; but again the inferences you think you see only might be right.

 

[Beesnaturally]

BN - even the author of the full study posted doesn't claim the study conclusion you are.
Ian asked
"
“'Intrinsic maladaptation'? I'd call it simple, predictable, adapting. Its what happens when you leave populations alone. Evolution works: you get small, swarmy 'survivor' colonies, then larger and more stable ones, and finally a thriving natural population.”

I did ask if you could point us to some part of the world that this has taken place!
"

The study doesnt do that. It reports ferrel bees in low densities in some tree hollows in Poland. You've drawn some inferences; but again the inferences you think you see only might be right.

Can you remind me of what exactly it is that I have claimed that you think has not been yet sustained?

 

[Beesnaturally]

( Can we have no more argument about the validity of the proposition that: "antibiotic or pesticide treatments blunt selection for disease resistance" )

Has anyone in fact argued against the validity of this statement?

Not really no. What they have done repeatedly is scoffed at the idea that feral bees have gained a measure of resistence, and that treating bees tends to undercut the development of such resistance.

Of course scoffing isn't arguing.

It's the inferences you draw that are problematic - such as what you think you're observing (in the feild and your reviews of literature) must be such and such because it makes theoretical sense. In other words that your experiences prove something, they don't. They are just, all be it interesting, observations and experiences which may give weight to particualr ideas.

Can you supply an explanation for the fact of feral bees are observed to thrive unaided (scientifically - read them papers), when it is known that apiary bees collapse under the weight of varroa within a couple of years...

....that is better than the one scientists in the field feel justified in invoking without any need for further elaboration?

Is the proposition that natural selection _will always_ tend toward this result, and is the explanation accepted by scientists working in the field, insufficient?

This is no more than actual real 2 plus actual real 2 make actual real 4... by far the most likely outcome.

Then there's the fact that I've written on this, and showed the work to several properly and appropriately qualified people (scientists) and had my proposition (that treatments prevent the development of resistance) confirmed as not just likely but certain. I'm afraid, private correspondece being just that, you'll have to take my word for that.

 

[Wilco]

Can we have no more argument about the validity of the proposition that: "antibiotic or pesticide treatments [] blunt selection for disease resistance"

I'll meet you part way. How about:
"antibiotic or pesticide treatments can blunt selection for disease resistance" (but also could be used to select for it).

I'll make this distinction for the following reasons:

Recently you responded that it's not just your bees but also your subpopulation of mites and that just taking one of your queens and putting her with bees elsewhere may not work as the mites may be more fecund etc.. (please correct if I've misunderstood).

Treatment would wipe out mite populations wholesale but can be used as part of trait selection in the honeybee and increasing their prevelance and success where the slight advantage initially may be insufficient to guarantee survival (like a beneficial version of the disgraceful selection for brachycephaly in dogs becoming more pronounced over time). Thus these bee traits which may confer a slight advantage alone can be more rapidly and consistently selected for than if left alone.

However, treatment could be counterproductive for selecting for lower fecundity varroa. It is this lower fecundity concept I am most interested in for this discussion at the moment.

Ultimately if varroa is very fecund it may spread more rapidly but it risks wiping out colonies, losing a host and dying out (bit more complex than just the R number) so whilst I await confirmation of this putative situation, it is conceivable that the most 'fit' varroa could be the less fecund, as part of being more host-adapted. I say treatment could be counterproductive rather than would be as beekeepers do not differentiate between theoretical substypes of varroa when treating so there is probably no net selection pressure either way if these subpopulations occur.

Conversely, if, in line with best practice in other agricultural industries/Veterinary practice, a test and treat approach was used where treatment was only used if varroa numbers are over a certain threshold as opposed to routinely, I suspect this could speed up selection for less fecund varroa.

 

[BugsInABox]

1)

that treatments prevent the development of resistance

but as you said no one has disgareed with you - you dont need to tell us about your correspondence.

2)

Can you supply an explanation for the fact of feral bees are observed to thrive unaided (scientifically - read them papers), when it is known that apiary bees collapse under the weight of varroa within a couple of years...

As a fact - some feral bees thrive would seem like a very hard thing to disprove - but what's your point.

3)

Is the proposition that natural selection _will always_ tend toward this result ... insufficient.

No one is arguing with you. I suppose my only point would be: if extinction doesn't get in the way first. But back to 2 - are we there yet

4)

What they have done repeatedly is scoffed at the idea that feral bees have gained a measure of resistence, and that treating bees tends to undercut the development of such resistance.

I've looked at the whole thread and really can't see this. But even if they had you did ask us to discuss it. You have a view that "that treating bees tends to undercut the development of such resistance" - it seems a reasonable one; but there might be valid reason to conisder the opposite - it does you no favours to dissmiss other ideas as scoffing? For example I might point out some are of the view that colonies collapsing due to varroa loads become varroa bombs and could be doing much harm to local ferral colonies with nascent resistance. (I'm happy to be told I might be wrong and will listen attentaively but try to address this without calling me names and insisting I'm definately wrong).

5)

Can you remind me of what exactly it is that I have claimed that you think has not been yet sustained?

How about:

We know that resistance to, and tolerance of, varroa takes the form of bee behaviours that are heritable.

Maybe you meant "It's lookign likely (maybe even very likely) that resistance.....
or
It seems that at least part of reistance to, and tolerance of, ......

my (low fecundity) mite genes

Beyond some interesting theory you dont seem to have substantiated your possession of these maladapted mites at all, and yet used it as a way of closing down an offer to help verify your results.

The bees 'breeding' low-fecundity mites by taking out the high-fecundity individuals is, the science says, one of the main ways by which bees gain resistance.

Perhaps: "...is, some science is indicating, one of the main ways..."

 

[BugsInABox]

However, treatment could be counterproductive for selecting for lower fecundity varroa. It is this lower fecundity concept I am most interested in for this discussion at the moment.

Yes lets get back to that.
General hive ecosytem, beyond pure gentic bee phenotype, is a reall interesting idea. But does bees selecting for low fecundity in mites as a form of reistant behaviour seem like a reach? How can they tell? Are there any other example in nature of annimals practicing husbandry in this way?

 

[Beesnaturally]

Beyond some interesting theory you dont seem to have substantiated your possession of these maladapted mites at all, and yet used it as a way of closing down an offer to help verify your results.

I've suggested, with the science, that uncapping only high-fecundity mites may be one one of the chief mechanisms located by natural selection.

That's all. I don't have to substantiate it as happening in my own apiraies. I have no evidence. I could look for for re-capped cells, but my policy is not to micro-manage. Its to put them through the mill and take from the best of the survivors.

As far as I can recall I haven't been asked to substantiate it.

I didn't close down those offers: I stated why I thought just a queen would be insufficient, and hinted that I probably wasn't going to give away valuable nucs

You need to try harder not to misrepresent me.

Beyond that I don't know what you want. So I'm going to stop replying, unless you have a specific question.