VSH Testing

[B+.]

I am in the process of re-testing a queen (55-2-70-2016) for VSH and have encountered something I can't explain.

After uncapping 80+ cells, I have found only 8 containing foundress mites in cells containing purple-eyed worker brood. However, I have found quite a few others with no mite but the fluorescent white mark on the upper cell walls (mite defecation) that indicate the presence of a mite. How can this be if there is no mite in the cell? Has anyone else encountered this? I should add, the cappings appear perfect so there is no sign that a worker has uncapped the cell.

 

[Kenson]

Is it possible;
Pupa 1 hatches and the Queen lays (i.e. the Fecal matter you are observing is not cleaned away), so you find a Pupa and mess but no mite?

2nd possibility occurs to me:
Workers clean cell. Mite, looking for Pupa to infest ("Wandering mite"), messes in cell, but moves on with no Pupa available.

 

[B+.]

Is it possible;
Pupa 1 hatches and the Queen lays (i.e. the Fecal matter you are observing is not cleaned away), so you find a Pupa and mess but no mite?

This is what I suspect happened. However, I do not know for certain. It all depends on how much cleaning the workers do before the queen comes along and lays again.
The colony was already tested in the Netherlands and came out at 87.5% VSH. After a years testing, I was asked to re-test the VSH (scientists always like to re-test things!) and I couldn't explain the fluorescent mark in an otherwise clean cell.
I have asked my contact in the Netherlands but thought I'd fire a question off here while I wait for a reply

 

[Kenson]

Well, I have been watching them thar bees, and it seems to me that they do not work the way we do. They don't do many jobs as "whole jobs", they kind of all "fuss around it doing a bit", then "another bit", then "another bit".

Their working methods are generally fragmented.

Not when it comes to foraging, obviously, they come back with fairly full pollen sacks, and I imagine tummies of water / nectar, although I cannot prove that unless I can get to weigh them (working on that).

I read that the first thing young bee does is clean her cell (wondering about Drones, what do they do?), but from the 20 or so observations I've done so far they wander off and eat first, then start cleaning.

But they do not "get a mop and bucket" clean/repair a cell completely, they "have a dibble" and move on to another cell, my guess is carrying out the same function, another bee will then dibble the same cell, and then another, and then another. There are gaps between, and these vary.

The Queen inspects each cell, takes a few steps (a known quantity to her) and Dibbles the egg in. But her inspection is brief, and I can see that it is a "will this do" inspection, provided it is up to a certain standard, it gets an egg. That standard probably is not "Perfect", there are a number of things she could ignore, and one of those could be the stain you observe.

There will be a large variance across Queens I think, this will have a direct impact on her "laying rate", a Queen that rejects 9/10 cells must by definition lay far slower than a Queen that accepts in 9/10 cells.

But your observation is interesting

I only have a half a Nuc of bees so far, but I am learning

My current area of "primary research", is "Bee Care and Overwintering" (because I only have half a Nuc, I have to get them through this winter). So that includes disease control (mainly Varroa). With a second string of "Temperament adjustment", can it be adjusted? We will see. For all things more advanced I will consult the BBKA, probably at Stockwood on a Sunday , they seem to know everything , for Queens I would probably see if I can drive all the way to Toddington , which is what, 3 miles? I could walk over

It will be interesting to see what the Dutch feedback is

K

 

[B+.]

It will be interesting to see what the Dutch feedback is

In VSH (Varroa Sensitive Hygiene), workers are able to identify reproducing varroa and remove the content of infested cells. Some mites will be killed but the main thrust is on disrupting the breeding cycle so that the progeny do not survive (males and immature females don't survive outside the cell).
I ended up uncapping over 200 cells and examining the contents under a microscope. This is how I discovered the fluorescent stain on the upper wall, which, I didn't expect to see.
This is where my thinking was faulty. Having never performed the test myself, I assumed that the mites would be butchered before it got a chance to lay, but, this was wrong. The workers should target these reproducing females and I should see a higher proportion of non-reproducing (sterile) mites than reproducing mites. It also comes down to the definition of what you call "non reproducing". If the female mite is disrupted so much that her family are still immature when the bee emerges from its cell, they will all die. This is what keeps the mite population under control.

 

[Fusion_power]

VSH alone won't resolve the varroa issue, but it will be a step in the right direction. Allogrooming and mite mauling are also needed. Some other traits may also be useful for getting varroa under control.

 

[B+.]

Allogrooming and mite mauling are also needed. Some other traits may also be useful for getting varroa under control.

The problem with these other traits is the time/effort necessary to gather information and the uncertainty over the results.
However, I agree with your basic point that VSH is not a "magic bullet". It is more than most people over here have though.
We may find that a combination of all these traits each adds a little bit to the toolbox of things that help against varroa. It's just that the data on some of them is a bit subjective for my liking

 

[Beefriendly]

When your research group eventually decides to commercially sell their VSH queens it still isn't going to be of much use to the average beekeeper unless all the genes governing this behaviour are dominant....and they won't be. All will be lost and back to normal after the first cross downstream with the local mongrels. Or have any of this pan european group ay data that suggests the VSH remains in the projeny of random crosses.
Unless it does it would force the average beekeeper into constantly purchasing and replacing queens every time one decides to swarm/die.
It will probably work out cheaper to continue with effective varroa treatments.

 

[B+.]

It will probably work out cheaper to continue with effective varroa treatments.

If you truly believe this, you're welcome to continue doing things the way you do now. However, if you see (as I do) the potential for things to be so much better in this country, I invite you (or anyone else) to join me.
I have seen things that most people on this forum wouldn't believe possible. I have been given access to unpublished research and scarce breeding material.
Why?
The answer is simple: I would rather work with our European neighbours than continually criticise them without understanding what it is they are doing.

 

[Beefriendly]

The answer is simple: I would rather work with our European neighbours than continually criticise them without understanding what it is they are doing.

I don't blame you in doing that, the Europeans are more advanced in methods and thoughts about beekeeping and breeding than we are. And I do understand what you are doing it isn't rocket science. I would have approached it form a different angle myself, but then it's not my research project.
What I wrote wasn't a criticism B+, it was a factual statement of what will eventually happen. By all means show me the error in my thinking rather than suggest I don't understand. As I say the VSH trait will be lost when these queens are released to breed into a background of random local drones. Same applies for Buckfast/Italians/Ordinary Carniolans etc.
I'd be very interested to know if the offspring of any VSH queens you produce retain this characteristic after open mating's?
Do they?

 

[B+.]

By all means show me the error in my thinking rather than suggest I don't understand. As I say the VSH trait will be lost when these queens are released to breed into a background of random local drones. Same applies for Buckfast/Italians/Ordinary Carniolans etc.

I always remember a quotation - I don't know where it came from, but, it speaks volumes in cases like this: "if you keep on doing what you always did, you'll always get what you always got". In other words, it would be irrational to believe you would get a different outcome by doing the same thing over and over again. Therefore, something has to change.
Our present attitude towards random mating doesn't work. So, why wouldn't you fix a process that is broken? It doesn't give us the outcome (good queens with desirable traits) that many of us want. What is missing is a means to produce these queens in sufficient numbers. So, how do they do it elsewhere?
II is perfect, but, it isn't really ideal for producing large numbers (unless the cost per queen could be driven down somehow). In Europe (mainly Germany) they use offshore islands to mate thousands of queens each June/July when the weather is good enough. I have queens that have been island mated and the process works. We just need to get ourselves organised and duplicate what they have done in Germany (or send virgins to the Frisian islands for mating).
You're right. It isn't rocket science. We just have to stop bickering and learn to work together. That way, everyone wins.

 

[B+.]

the VSH trait will be lost when these queens are released to breed into a background of random local drones. Same applies for Buckfast/Italians/Ordinary Carniolans etc.
I'd be very interested to know if the offspring of any VSH queens you produce retain this characteristic after open mating's?
Do they?

Absolutely. Any trait will diminish if you do nothing to preserve it. Its the same as any other livestock.
If you ask a farmer where his herd of pedigree cows came from. He will probably tell you that he used the best stock available and inseminated (either he did or a vet did) the cow with semen from the best bulls. This happens generation after generation and the stock gradually improves. Bees are different to cows though. They do have the ability to reproduce without our involvement - if we let them.
What I am suggesting is that we distinguish between our breeding stock and our production stock. Those queens that escape our attention and random mate can be used in production colonies, then replaced. We don't raise daughters from them. We replace them with daughters of our breeding stock that is mated under controlled conditions.
If we can't control the mating process ourselves, we can pay others to do it for us just like farmers of other animals do. It's not rocket science. Farmers have been doing this for a long time.

 

[Beefriendly]

Bees are different to cows though. They do have the ability to reproduce without our involvement -

Aren't you forgetting about Bulls? Don't need much involvement from us when they are used for breeding cows. Not everything comes down to artificial insemination..

 

[B+.]

Aren't you forgetting about Bulls? Don't need much involvement from us when they are used for breeding cows. Not everything comes down to artificial insemination..

This is true, but you have to bring partners together with desirable characteristics (selection) and encourage them to mate under controlled conditions.
It would be no good allowing a load of unselected cows to run around in a field of bulls, expecting to get good progeny (even if the bulls didn't injure themselves or the cows). You have to select mating partners based on observable characteristics.

You could mate the same cow (dam) with the same bull (sire) over and over again. You'd get pretty much the same results. In order to make any sort of progress, you'd have to select the best from the progeny and mate it with the best mates you can find. You'd do this generation after generation (selective pressure). The only important difference is that a breeding programme ramps up the selective pressure so you go through lots of generations in a relatively short period, making improvements in each generation.

 

[foghornleghorn]

Aren't you forgetting about Bulls? Don't need much involvement from us when they are used for breeding cows. Not everything comes down to artificial insemination..

People have been controlling which bulls serve cows for a couple of thousand years at this stage

 

[Fusion_power]

As I say the VSH trait will be lost when these queens are released to breed into a background of random local drones.

You are correct so long as there is no selection pressure to ensure the mite resistance traits are retained. We have plenty of beekeepers here in the U.S. who complain bitterly of getting mite resistant genetics that are promptly overwhelmed by mites when susceptible colonies in the area collapse and turn into mite bombs. The paradigm changes when positive selection pressure is maintained to retain the desired trait(s). Here where I live, feral bees are genetically resistant to mites such that I can get queens mated that all express high mite resistance. Even though there are a few beekeepers with run of the mill Italians, there are not enough of them to overcome the resistance of the feral bees. I set up a mating station in a reasonably isolated area with no beekeepers within 4 miles. With the predominant source of drones from my colonies, mating is consistent enough that I can make a bit of progress improving other traits like better honey production and reduced swarming. All it takes is a group of beekeepers willing to use only mite resistant genetics and in a few years mites become a non-issue.

 

[B+.]

All it takes is a group of beekeepers willing to use only mite resistant genetics and in a few years mites become a non-issue.

I suspect that it has to become a way of life - just like taking a preventative medicine. If you stop taking the medicine, the problem returns.

 

[Fusion_power]

I suspect that it has to become a way of life

Beekeepers are creatively lazy. We tend to find easy ways to achieve desired results. Show a beekeeper that he can keep bees with zero mite treatments and guess what, he will decide that treatment free is actually a nice thing to be. All it took in my case was finally getting access to some decent genetics. It helped a lot more when I was able to saturate the surrounding area with swarms of genetically mite resistant bees. I didn't like seeing 40 or 50 swarms hit the trees, but it was the only way I could think of to drastically change the paradigm in this area. There are now 6 beekeepers in this area using my bees. I got one more started this year. He wants to split his single colony next spring and wind up with at least 3 by the end of the year. He has an exceptionally strong 2 story Langstroth colony that built up from a 3 frame April split.

 

[Beefriendly]

You could mate the same cow (dam) with the same bull (sire) over and over again. You'd get pretty much the same results.

Actually there would be considerable differences in offspring if you could repeat that same cross limitless times, 2 to the power n in fact where n = haploid number of chromosomes. In cattle this is 30, so 900 different possible outcomes of the same cross. Not "pretty much the same result".

In bees it becomes even more irregular as they have one the highest crossover rates known (That is crossing over bits of one chromosome to the adjacent one) which is why, even with II, you get so much variation in your offspring.

 

[Beefriendly]

It helped a lot more when I was able to saturate the surrounding area with swarms of genetically mite resistant bees. I didn't like seeing 40 or 50 swarms hit the trees, but it was the only way I could think of to drastically change the paradigm in this area.

Now that is a good way to go if any of these varroa tolerant bees are to be of use to the general beekeeper. Alas in the UK getting beekeepers to even agree to disagree about anything is still nigh on impossible; so the likelihood of this happening is ziltch.