VARROA SENSITIVE HYGIENE

[Beesnaturally]

That’s a given as it’s a trait that breeders found in bees and subsequently accentuated or will hopefully fix as in desirable traits and line breeding. It’s the ability to fix or stabilise this trait that breeders are after.

Can we clarify: "That breeders found in adapting 'survivor' populations". The injunction to breeders from bee scientists to source these population for resistant traits is frequent and longstanding in the literature.

As to the trait preceding imported queens…..Well if your assuming bees that come in contact with varroa develop this trait, foreign imported bees should be decades in front of UK bees. Is that not logical due to the shorter contact period in the UK? Plus the fact European breeders are years in front of anything we have here!

No. The logic is: in the UK adaptation that has played out in 'survivor', or 'free-living' populations has raised the various resistance traits.

Meanwhile, systematic treatments in apiaries have prevented any such adaptation, and half-hearted fiddling about by a handful of breeders who have failed to understand the richness that surviving populations offer has sent semi-resistant, non-locally-adapted queens to beekeepers and commercial apiaries which treat them regardless, thus rapidly binning any useful resistance genes they might have held.

 

[Michael Palmer]

Good luck with the UBO. Let's hope that, or other learnings, lead to less varroa naïve bees being produced.

For the benefit of others, Kirk Webster has a commercial operation in Vermont and hasn't used chemical treatments on his bees for over 20 years. One of the pioneers of this approach. Kirk Webster | New/Old Beekeeping Discoveries

How can I say this without sniping at Kirk. He's been a friend for many years. His writings are encouraging but is his story, in fact, truthful?

You would think that after so many years running a treatment free apiary, his bees would further ahead. Well, he still loses most of his apiary every year. He has canceled his nuc/queen sales most years because he needs them to rebuild his apiary. In my opinion, the only salvation for his apiary is the nucleus colony side of his apiary. Nuclei are able to withstand varroa collapse more successfully than the big honey production colonies. We saw this same thing when first battling Acarine. The same can be said about nucleus colonies vs. varroa.

In my breeding program, I have 100 nuclei in two apiaries made up in June, with daughters of 10 breeder queens selected for desirable traits. Of the 100 nucs, three colonies in the first apiary and five in the second apiary had mite counts above treatment threshold of 2%. The vast majority...actually almost all of the nuclei...had zero mites in the alcohol wash. Now, if we follow these nucs through the next two years after installing them in full size langstroth hives, the mite loads go way up above threshold. So, to me, just selecting from "survivor" stock isn't moving us forward toward varroa control.

Of course I always wish Kirk all the best in his breeding program. Wouldn't it be awesome for him to come up with that stock that actually does what we all want. But, after 20+ years, he isn't any further ahead in the varroa game.

 

[Beesnaturally]

How can I say this without sniping at Kirk. He's been a friend for many years. His writings are encouraging but is his story, in fact, truthful?

You would think that after so many years running a treatment free apiary, his bees would further ahead. Well, he still loses most of his apiary every year. He has canceled his nuc/queen sales most years because he needs them to rebuild his apiary. In my opinion, the only salvation for his apiary is the nucleus colony side of his apiary. Nuclei are able to withstand varroa collapse more successfully than the big honey production colonies. We saw this same thing when first battling Acarine. The same can be said about nucleus colonies vs. varroa.

In my breeding program, I have 100 nuclei in two apiaries made up in June, with daughters of 10 breeder queens selected for desirable traits. Of the 100 nucs, three colonies in the first apiary and five in the second apiary had mite counts above treatment threshold of 2%. The vast majority...actually almost all of the nuclei...had zero mites in the alcohol wash. Now, if we follow these nucs through the next two years after installing them in full size langstroth hives, the mite loads go way up above threshold. So, to me, just selecting from "survivor" stock isn't moving us forward toward varroa control.

Of course I always wish Kirk all the best in his breeding program. Wouldn't it be awesome for him to come up with that stock that actually does what we all want. But, after 20+ years, he isn't any further ahead in the varroa game.

Hi Michael. I went the collect/live and let die routine. I was ruthless: they got a box and that was it for the first 6 years. Now I have perhaps 20 good strong hives that have stood continuously for between maybe 4 and 7 years, and my losses not down to clumsy beekeeping are around the 10% mark across roughly 60-70 colonies, including nucs. Last year was the first time I even rotated some new brood comb in.

I have a survivor bee population, and my (non) management reinforces and strengthens it. I'm close to convinced that you need a healthy local wild population to sort things out for you, and to counter the odd treating beekeeper's drones. You need to be somewhere where a good range of plants provides for them. Then take care of your population, your deme.

Whether my bees would suit a full-on commercial outfit I doubt. They'd find behaviour issues, variability issues, they wouldn't husband the genes, and they wouldn't have wild bees around to correct that for them. And I think that will always be the case: 'mistreating', 'over-exploiting' bees will always make more money than doing things properly. What's new there?

What bothers me is the overwhelming narrative that we are all in that boat, that its the only show in town. Its not.

 

[JohnRB]

I get disheartened by the endless repetition of all these points. I keep bees as a hobby - I like keeping bees, I like learning about them and I like the honey and the wax I get from them. It also encourages me to do some physical activity for at least half of the year and is a great way to actually meet people in the real world and make friends. If someone wants to go the ruthless live and let die routine, that's fine - I see it entirely as their business and actually quite interesting. If I want to keep nice friendly bees that thrive well and I enjoy working with, then I see that as entirely my business. Yet that doesn't seem acceptable to some. Some beekeepers want me to change the way I keep bees to suit the way they think bees should be kept. Quite simply, no. The answer is simple - European programmes have developed some fantastic bees - if you want me to keep native black bees, run a breeding programme that produces bees that are as good. I have this fear that one day, programmes like Beebreed will produce varroa resistant bees that I can't access, simply because they are too yellow, leaving the UK as the last bastion of Varroa in Europe.

Without starting to rant, I would also like to see some actual studies rather than well meaning statements like 'The logic is: in the UK adaptation that has played out in 'survivor', or 'free-living' populations has raised the various resistance traits'. That may well be true, but it may well not be. It may be that free living bees are no more resistant to varroa than mine, but their relative isolation may well be a help - but until we see actual scientific studies who knows?

 

[pargyle]

I get disheartened by the endless repetition of all these points. I keep bees as a hobby - I like keeping bees, I like learning about them and I like the honey and the wax I get from them. It also encourages me to do some physical activity for at least half of the year and is a great way to actually meet people in the real world and make friends. If someone wants to go the ruthless live and let die routine, that's fine - I see it entirely as their business and actually quite interesting. If I want to keep nice friendly bees that thrive well and I enjoy working with, then I see that as entirely my business. Yet that doesn't seem acceptable to some. Some beekeepers want me to change the way I keep bees to suit the way they think bees should be kept. Quite simply, no. The answer is simple - European programmes have developed some fantastic bees - if you want me to keep native black bees, run a breeding programme that produces bees that are as good. I have this fear that one day, programmes like Beebreed will produce varroa resistant bees that I can't access, simply because they are too yellow, leaving the UK as the last bastion of Varroa in Europe.

Without starting to rant, I would also like to see some actual studies rather than well meaning statements like 'The logic is: in the UK adaptation that has played out in 'survivor', or 'free-living' populations has raised the various resistance traits'. That may well be true, but it may well not be. It may be that free living bees are no more resistant to varroa than mine, but their relative isolation may well be a help - but until we see actual scientific studies who knows?

The argument will continue until one side or the other gives up and stops responding. I'm a bit like you, John, I keep bees the way I keep bees ... I'm TF and my bees thrive but I don't know why - It's my way and it works for me .. but I'm the last person to suggest that anyone treads my path .. it's there if they want it but we are all individuals. I find it tiresome that both sides of the various debates on here at present - TF or no TF, Black Bees or Yellow Bees, AMM or Buckfast and all the variants in between seem to just continue without any acceptance that what the other side of the debate (or more often argument) believes may not be provable and just has to be left like that !

I agree .. there's too much of the continual repetition of the same old arguments at present. Some people obviously enjoy it - I just wish they would bring some fresh sandwiches to the picnic.

 

[Steve at Westerham Beeks]

That’s a given as it’s a trait that breeders found in bees and subsequently accentuated or will hopefully fix as in desirable traits and line breeding. It’s the ability to fix or stabilise this trait that breeders are after.
As to the trait preceding imported queens…..Well if your assuming bees that come in contact with varroa develop this trait, foreign imported bees should be decades in front of UK bees. Is that not logical due to the shorter contact period in the UK? Plus the fact European breeders are years in front of anything we have here!

No offense taken!! I'm looking forward to seeing your imports (?) and can see how when bred for VSH, they could be additive to the gene pool.

The Continental European breeders learned about VSH from the USDA, who observed the Primorsky bees. This is a relatively new phenomena as they only visited Batton Rouge in 2014. In the UK, we have had naturally resistant bees since before 2014. The best known group are the c.500 colonies in the Snowdonia region, where treatments ceased in 2008.

 

[Erichalfbee]

Same here. I keep bees of all colours. I don’t breed my own queens in any way other than AS of some kind. When the fancy takes me I buy a new queen. I’ve tried all sorts. I’ve always been grateful that I can.
I too am dismayed why a particularly vociferous hobby lobby wants to influence the way I keep my bees or indeed the way the whole country keeps bees.
Perhaps it’s better not to rise to the voice and let them just chat to each other

 

[Steve at Westerham Beeks]

I get disheartened by the endless repetition of all these points. I keep bees as a hobby - I like keeping bees, I like learning about them and I like the honey and the wax I get from them. It also encourages me to do some physical activity for at least half of the year and is a great way to actually meet people in the real world and make friends. If someone wants to go the ruthless live and let die routine, that's fine - I see it entirely as their business and actually quite interesting. If I want to keep nice friendly bees that thrive well and I enjoy working with, then I see that as entirely my business. Yet that doesn't seem acceptable to some. Some beekeepers want me to change the way I keep bees to suit the way they think bees should be kept. Quite simply, no. The answer is simple - European programmes have developed some fantastic bees - if you want me to keep native black bees, run a breeding programme that produces bees that are as good. I have this fear that one day, programmes like Beebreed will produce varroa resistant bees that I can't access, simply because they are too yellow, leaving the UK as the last bastion of Varroa in Europe.

Without starting to rant, I would also like to see some actual studies rather than well meaning statements like 'The logic is: in the UK adaptation that has played out in 'survivor', or 'free-living' populations has raised the various resistance traits'. That may well be true, but it may well not be. It may be that free living bees are no more resistant to varroa than mine, but their relative isolation may well be a help - but until we see actual scientific studies who knows?

John

If you'd like some science, have a look at the publication from Prof Stephen Martin. He's 30 years on the subject.

https://www.bbka.org.uk/shop/bbka-special-edition-natural-varroa-resistant-honey-bees
Happy & healthy new year to all and wishing your bees good overwintering

Steve

 

[pargyle]

John

If you'd like some science, have a look at the publication from Prof Stephen Martin. He's 30 years on the subject.

https://***************/shop/bbka-special-edition-natural-varroa-resistant-honey-bees
Happy & healthy new year to all and wishing your bees good overwintering

Steve

http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/60183/?template=banner
It's early days and he's not claiming any significant breakthrough in the UK ... His study of VSH is very recent, although he is eminent in the field of bee biology and academically well respected.

 

[JohnRB]

John

If you'd like some science, have a look at the publication from Prof Stephen Martin. He's 30 years on the subject.

https://***************/shop/bbka-special-edition-natural-varroa-resistant-honey-bees
Happy & healthy new year to all and wishing your bees good overwintering

Steve

Hi Steve,

I saw Prof Stephen at Harper Adams this year - very interesting. But, like pargyle says it's early days. He acknowledged that the hygienic traits observed might be something that bees in specific localities have 'learned' and might not be transferable with passed on queens. He did say he had something coming up in a future BBKA magazine, but if so I have missed it. Certainly his work is something to keep tabs on

 

[Beesnaturally]

The argument will continue until one side or the other gives up and stops responding. I'm a bit like you, John, I keep bees the way I keep bees ... I'm TF and my bees thrive but I don't know why - It's my way and it works for me .. but I'm the last person to suggest that anyone treads my path .. it's there if they want it but we are all individuals. I find it tiresome that both sides of the various debates on here at present - TF or no TF, Black Bees or Yellow Bees, AMM or Buckfast and all the variants in between seem to just continue without any acceptance that what the other side of the debate (or more often argument) believes may not be provable and just has to be left like that !

I agree .. there's too much of the continual repetition of the same old arguments at present. Some people obviously enjoy it - I just wish they would bring some fresh sandwiches to the picnic.

This is (just part of) the sort of thing I mean when I say talk about working no-treatment/with free living bees etc is suppressed on the forums. We could have an section where people could ask and learn, about all sorts of aspects of non-treatment; but its as if its painful for a few to hear. Just let us have our threads. You don't have to read them.

 

[pargyle]

This is (just part of) the sort of thing I mean when I say talk about working no-treatment/with free living bees etc is suppressed on the forums. We could have an section where people could ask and learn, about all sorts of aspects of non-treatment; but its as if its painful for a few to hear. Just let us have our threads. You don't have to read them.

Are you not aware that my bees are TF and have been since I started keeping bees nearly 12 years ago ? I'm not averse to discussion, debate or informative posts, none of the moderatore are. We don't need a separate section - there have been many threads relating to TF over the years ... people can join in or ignore them as they see fit - they may have views that don't meet your expectations but that's life. Continually stating your case is not helping to encourage people to follow your path ... I've lost count of how many times you have reiterated your position.

As mods we don't have the luxury of not reading threads - it goes with the job (unpaid I would add). It's not just the threads that you contribute to ... there are others about other topics that seem to generate polar opposite opinions. We don't seek to stifle them but weeding out the insults and put downs is becoming tiresome ...

 

[Beesnaturally]

The Continental European breeders learned about VSH from the USDA, who observed the Primorsky bees. This is a relatively new phenomena as they only visited Batton Rouge in 2014. In the UK, we have had naturally resistant bees since before 2014. The best known group are the c.500 colonies in the Snowdonia region, where treatments ceased in 2008.

John Kefuss has been breeding bees in France and writing scientific papers about bees and varroa since 1995


https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7218-6823https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Kefuss
His own outline of his findings:
"Abstract
A survival field test was initiated in 1999 to observe the effects of no treatment against Varroa destructor on European honey bee colony survival. After losses of over two-thirds of the 268 original colonies, new colonies were made from the survivors. In 2002, genetic material from these survivors was bred into an independent group of 60 colonies. In 2013, 519 non-treated colonies from both groups were being used for commercial beekeeping, and mite populations were very low. This indicates that under commercial beekeeping conditions, simple methods can be used to select for reduced mite populations."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00218839.2016.1160709

 

[pargyle]

John Kefuss has been breeding bees in France and writing scientific papers about bees and varroa since 1995


https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7218-6823https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Kefuss
His own outline of his findings:
"Abstract
A survival field test was initiated in 1999 to observe the effects of no treatment against Varroa destructor on European honey bee colony survival. After losses of over two-thirds of the 268 original colonies, new colonies were made from the survivors. In 2002, genetic material from these survivors was bred into an independent group of 60 colonies. In 2013, 519 non-treated colonies from both groups were being used for commercial beekeeping, and mite populations were very low. This indicates that under commercial beekeeping conditions, simple methods can be used to select for reduced mite populations."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00218839.2016.1160709

I've read the whole paper and I would encourage everyone to read, at least, the Discussion section at the end:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00218839.2016.1160709
Unfortunately, the scientists engaged in the work - which, in some cases, goes back to 1999 - mostly give up their studies and move on as it is so difficult to reach positive conclusions and create the bee strains that are reliably VSH in all conditions. There are indications that some bees, in some locations and in some circumstances will develop VSH tendencies. Replicating this behaviour consistently over the longer term has proved to be difficult. All the experiments show large colony losses both in the early stages and some at the three and five year stage. The risk to both hobby and commercial beekeepers from the consequential loss of blind (ie without regular testing for mite levels) no treatment regimes are not inconsequential.

I do believe that 'chemical' treatments are detrimental - I think many of (if not most) of the members on here who treat their bees are converted to OA by sublimation in one way or another. Unlike other treatments for varroa this does not involve the bees ingesting or breathing 'chemicals' and it is my belief that it does not weaken colonies. I have no firm evidence for this but the nature of sublimation would suggest, logically, that it is no more harmful than icing sugar to the bees but it is a very effective (97% kill rate) miticide.

There are some indications that 'chemical' treatments do inhibit the development of VSH traits in bees - but most of the studies pre-date OA by Sublimation treatments being commonplace and the experiments have not been replicated with control samples treated with sublimated OA.

Interestingly, some of the studies indicate that, whilst some VSH untreated colonies show similar mortality rates to those treated with 'chemicals' they show a marked reduction in honey production compared to treated colonies. It could be argued that this a contraindication in the successful development of bees that can survive without treatment.

As a non-treater I started out with a distinct aversion to introducing anything into my colonies that the bees have not brought in and I've maintained that position. But .... I am convinced that OA by sublimation is the least invasive varroa treatment available and is undoubtedly at the top end of effectiveness - and if I could also be convinced that it does not inhibit any natural ability the bees have to combatting varroa ... then I would forego my principles and use it where mite levels reach levels beyond which the colony's health could be put in jeopardy.

Indeed, there are many studies that show the build up of winter bees is seriously affected by high mite levels - perhaps there is a middle ground where colonies that show higher than average mite loads after the summer harvest are routinely treated in this way - reducing but not seeking to eradicate all the parasitic infliuence. Allowing bees exposure to varroa, allowing varroa exposure to its host, but not to the total detriment of either species ? Surely an experiment worth undertaking over a period of years with the control colonies remaining totally TF ?

You would argue that such a colony, that cannot survive unaided, should be taken out of the gene pool - and I would certainly not breed from the queen - but I am yet to be convinced that, in the short term, allowing natural resistance to develop by excluding all treatment is fhe total answer. And that's coming from a Non Treater ....

 

[JohnRB]

I've read the whole paper and I would encourage everyone to read, at least, the Discussion section at the end:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00218839.2016.1160709
Unfortunately, the scientists engaged in the work - which, in some cases, goes back to 1999 - mostly give up their studies and move on as it is so difficult to reach positive conclusions and create the bee strains that are reliably VSH in all conditions. There are indications that some bees, in some locations and in some circumstances will develop VSH tendencies. Replicating this behaviour consistently over the longer term has proved to be difficult. All the experiments show large colony losses both in the early stages and some at the three and five year stage. The risk to both hobby and commercial beekeepers from the consequential loss of blind (ie without regular testing for mite levels) no treatment regimes are not inconsequential.

I do believe that 'chemical' treatments are detrimental - I think many of (if not most) of the members on here who treat their bees are converted to OA by sublimation in one way or another. Unlike other treatments for varroa this does not involve the bees ingesting or breathing 'chemicals' and it is my belief that it does not weaken colonies. I have no firm evidence for this but the nature of sublimation would suggest, logically, that it is no more harmful than icing sugar to the bees but it is a very effective (97% kill rate) miticide.

There are some indications that 'chemical' treatments do inhibit the development of VSH traits in bees - but most of the studies pre-date OA by Sublimation treatments being commonplace and the experiments have not been replicated with control samples treated with sublimated OA.

Interestingly, some of the studies indicate that, whilst some VSH untreated colonies show similar mortality rates to those treated with 'chemicals' they show a marked reduction in honey production compared to treated colonies. It could be argued that this a contraindication in the successful development of bees that can survive without treatment.

As a non-treater I started out with a distinct aversion to introducing anything into my colonies that the bees have not brought in and I've maintained that position. But .... I am convinced that OA by sublimation is the least invasive varroa treatment available and is undoubtedly at the top end of effectiveness - and if I could also be convinced that it does not inhibit any natural ability the bees have to combatting varroa ... then I would forego my principles and use it where mite levels reach levels beyond which the colony's health could be put in jeopardy.

Indeed, there are many studies that show the build up of winter bees is seriously affected by high mite levels - perhaps there is a middle ground where colonies that show higher than average mite loads after the summer harvest are routinely treated in this way - reducing but not seeking to eradicate all the parasitic infliuence. Allowing bees exposure to varroa, allowing varroa exposure to its host, but not to the total detriment of either species ? Surely an experiment worth undertaking over a period of years with the control colonies remaining totally TF ?

You would argue that such a colony, that cannot survive unaided, should be taken out of the gene pool - and I would certainly not breed from the queen - but I am yet to be convinced that, in the short term, allowing natural resistance to develop by excluding all treatment is fhe total answer. And that's coming from a Non Treater ....

I got the impression from Prof Stephen that the trick may be to keep varroa above a certain level, bt below the level at which they do harm, otherwise the bees 'forget' their hygienic behaviour. I'm not sure that a regime that needs you to keep varroa between certain high and low levels is practical for most hobbyist beekeepers

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

or any beekeeper

 

[pargyle]

I got the impression from Prof Stephen that the trick may be to keep varroa above a certain level, bt below the level at which they do harm, otherwise the bees 'forget' their hygienic behaviour. I'm not sure that a regime that needs you to keep varroa between certain high and low levels is practical for most hobbyist beekeepers

I'm not suggesting that .... what I was saying was that the key to healthy colonies is to ensure they have low levels of mites going into winter. If this then means that lower levels are maintained through the season with a strong, healthy, colony it may be (as the Prof intimates) they are able to better adapt and cope and co-exist with varroa at the lower levels anticipated,

 

[Beesnaturally]

I do believe that 'chemical' treatments are detrimental - I think many of (if not most) of the members on here who treat their bees are converted to OA by sublimation in one way or another. Unlike other treatments for varroa this does not involve the bees ingesting or breathing 'chemicals' and it is my belief that it does not weaken colonies. I have no firm evidence for this but the nature of sublimation would suggest, logically, that it is no more harmful than icing sugar to the bees but it is a very effective (97% kill rate) miticide.

There are some indications that 'chemical' treatments do inhibit the development of VSH traits in bees - but most of the studies pre-date OA by Sublimation treatments being commonplace and the experiments have not been replicated with control samples treated with sublimated OA.

[..] .I am convinced that OA by sublimation is the least invasive varroa treatment available and is undoubtedly at the top end of effectiveness - and if I could also be convinced that it does not inhibit any natural ability the bees have to combatting varroa ... then I would forego my principles and use it where mite levels reach levels beyond which the colony's health could be put in jeopardy.

Sadly, the more effective any treatment is, the more it downgrades resistance in any wild bees living around.

I think something that should be said is that the interests of a hive (or several hives), and the interests of the local population are... two entirely different things. Of course it is in the immediate interest of the beekeeper to keep his or her hives alive and productive by all possible means. But keeping un-adapted, non-resistant hives alive means sending genes into the local population that inhibit and/or downgrade their resistance. Those of us who think of 'our bees' as both the bees in our hives and the wild bees that live around us have a very different picture in our minds.

When we speak of 'the bees' we need to be clear about which bees we mean.

Of course some of us think that a self-sufficient local population (ie a free-living, wild, or feral population) is a very good thing. In such a setting we don't need to treat, and we are gaining the terrific advantage of input from bees strengthened and attuned to our locality by natural selection. All is well in our world. Our bees - the ones in our hives and the ones that at one with us all around - are the truly healthy ones.

 

[Ian123]

The Continental European breeders learned about VSH from the USDA, who observed the Primorsky bees. This is a relatively new phenomena as they only visited Batton Rouge in 2014. In the UK, we have had naturally resistant bees since before 2014. The best known group are the c.500 colonies in the Snowdonia region, where treatments ceased in 2008.

Plenty of early work with the USDA and Eastern European beeks here.

https://www.ars.usda.gov/southeast-...ons/russian-honey-bee-publications-1993-2007/

 

[Beesnaturally]

John

If you'd like some science, have a look at the publication from Prof Stephen Martin. He's 30 years on the subject.

https://***************/shop/bbka-special-edition-natural-varroa-resistant-honey-bees
Happy & healthy new year to all and wishing your bees good overwintering

Steve

That link is messed up and I can't make it work - searching this gets you there:

bbka-special-edition-natural-varroa-resistant-honey-bees

There is a good introduction to the Snowdonia bees here: https://beemonitor.files.wordpress....ild-honeybees-of-snowdonia-v3-new-version.pdf