Varroa -- history

[ShinySideUp]

This might be a silly question, perhaps not, but I gather the Varroa mite was first seen in beehives in the 1980's. Since humans have been keeping bees for millenia
and the Varroa is apparently not mentioned before now then it's ascendence in honey bee colonies must be very recent. So, before the 80's, what did the Varroa live on? From where did it come?

 

[GaryB]

This might be a silly question, perhaps not, but I gather the Varroa mite was first seen in beehives in the 1980's. Since humans have been keeping bees for millenia
and the Varroa is apparently not mentioned before now then it's ascendence in honey bee colonies must be very recent. So, before the 80's, what did the Varroa live on? From where did it come?

It came from Asia. It was a parasite of the Asian honey bee Apis Cerana first observed in 1904. Apis Cerana have lived with it for millenia, and hence deal with the varroa mite, with little effect on them. With global exporting of honey bees, inevitably varroa spread throughout the other honey bee species, that had not "grown up" with varroa, and therefore had no natural defenses against it. Hence, for the European species it is still a burden.

 

[Briarfield]

History repeating itself again and again. Whether it's measles, syphilis, or Asian hornets we humans have no idea of the cost of travel.

Darwinism can't cope with rapid change.

 

[For want of a better word]

This might be a silly question, perhaps not, but I gather the Varroa mite was first seen in beehives in the 1980's. Since humans have been keeping bees for millenia
and the Varroa is apparently not mentioned before now then it's ascendence in honey bee colonies must be very recent. So, before the 80's, what did the Varroa live on? From where did it come?

Look this up.....

www.moraybeedinosaurs.co.uk/Varroa/historical record of varroa and..

Varroa mite was first sighted at Cockington on 4th April 1992.... just down the road from Buckfast Abbey.

Some lecturers in basic beekeeping seem to over look teaching about the problems associated with the massive importation of bees into the UK, potentially carrying virus that could decimate our stocks.
Bring this up with your tutors!


Perhaps this posting should be moved to the politics and pesticides section so as not to offend ?

Myttin da

 

[REDWOOD]

History repeating itself again and again. Whether it's measles, syphilis, or Asian hornets we humans have no idea of the cost of travel.

Darwinism can't cope with rapid change.

 

[Swarm]

I remember a timeline, global map showing the spread of varroa, from an area of Indonesia near java to our current date and consequent, practical global domination of this disgusting little creature.

 

[colinc]

It's a man hater originally, only living on drones but will feed on workers in A.melifera which is why it does more damage for us


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[JWF]

History repeating itself again and again. Whether it's measles, syphilis, or Asian hornets we humans have no idea of the cost of travel.

Darwinism can't cope with rapid change.

I disagree with that - Darwinism copes just fine with it, but it does it by decimating any vulnerable individuals leaving behind only those better able to cope - and if that's just a tiny percentage of the original population, so be it.

It's us that can't cope with it very well.

 

[Beefriendly]

If you remember the full history it was our exporting of European bees into Asia that caused the problem in the first place. European bees were introduced into areas that previously had only Apis cerana, dorsata and florea as their indigenous bees. Varroa destructor then jumped species to the Am's. If we had never exported our bees the problem migth never have arisen.
Blaming imports for the problem is like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Varroa Jacobsoni has now done the same in recent years.

 

[Gilberdyke John]

History repeating itself again and again. Whether it's measles, syphilis, or Asian hornets we humans have no idea of the cost of travel.

Darwinism can't cope with rapid change.

It might cope better if mankind didn't keep interfering and propping up defective individual members of species.

 

[Little John]

I disagree with that - Darwinism copes just fine with it, but it does it by decimating any vulnerable individuals leaving behind only those better able to cope - and if that's just a tiny percentage of the original population, so be it.

If the change is both sudden and severe enough, then the number of surviving individuals can be zero.

It's us that can't cope with it very well.

Are humans beings not also part of the dynamic of Nature ? It would be arrogant to think otherwise.
LJ

 

[For want of a better word]

It might cope better if mankind didn't keep interfering and propping up defective individual members of species.

and destroying the habitat that those " defective" species need to thrive in.
Where would the Earths biodiversity be without pink Parrots, Chimpanzees, Orangutans, African Elephants, Giraffe... snow leopards and the inhabitants of Cristan da Cuna ????

Myttin da

 

[JWF]

If the change is both sudden and severe enough, then the number of surviving individuals can be zero.



Are humans beings not also part of the dynamic of Nature ? It would be arrogant to think otherwise.
LJ

I agree. My point really is that Darwinism isn't something that 'looks after' species, it's a brutal natural process.

 

[Michael Palmer]

- Darwinism copes just fine with it, but it does it by decimating any vulnerable individuals leaving behind only those better able to cope -

Man breeds by selecting from the best. Nature breeds by getting rid of the dogs.

 

[Stiffy]

Man breeds by selecting from the best. Nature breeds by getting rid of the dogs.

It may have been true once but judging the 'leaders' in both of our countries I would have to disagree!
S