Wild/Feral Survivor-Thrivers: Naturally Selected Resistant Bees.

.
.
This is for discussion of bees that have acquired the ability to cope with varroa without any help. The core assumption is that in the UK and Ireland this has occurred through natural selection for the fittest strain, and any subsequent selection has built on that. The idea is to learn from each-other, what works, and why, in the realm of no-treatment beekeeping. Testimonies, questions, explanations and links to relevant scientific studies are all welcome.

I'd like the thread to be a place where the mechanisms that wild populations employ to locate and maintain resistance can be explored, in the belief that that topic holds the key to understanding why no-treatment beekeeping works in some circumstances and not in others.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

I think that it is a word which can be loaded with negative undertones

I can't recall to it being often used in that form on here

 

[Beesnaturally]

Oh I read the piece

You may well have done, but that didn't stop you taking from it something that is 180 degrees out!

and there’s plenty of others showing Promorsky bees not performing well when in real world situations, not in the middle of nowhere half a mile from another hive.

Let's see these studies.

Its so easy to make a claim the speaks to your narrative Ian. What we need is evidence that substantiates it.

Funny enough much like the Arnot bees, if the Arnot trial was to early in their development there must be a recent 1?

nth time: early in the process of adaptation; strategies have been honed (by the bees.)

Have you not read me say that before? Do you have an issue with it, or are you just choosing to pretend I haven't said it.

Pls show me reputable research for these European AM survivors in a real world trails,

Do you mean close-packed/hard worked commercial settings? I don't think there are any. I could be wrong, but last I heard it wasn't possible yet. That was some years ago mind.

Creating bees that can withstand all but impossibly unhealthy situations without having drugs thrown at them is not what this thread is about.

that just even has them preform well outside of a closed environment.

I'd like to see that 'closed environment' explanied. Taking my bees to a place that lacked a resistant feral population but would supply resistance-free genes through drones would decay them to the point of uselessness, if the beekeeper mites didn't get there first, would be a waste of good bees.

In a treatment-free wild/feral environment they will thive, mixing with local bees; and I will select from the resultant best because a) I know that's a necessary thing b) I want slightly different bees than the naturally selected.

As for breeders and Ron is not really a good example you should pay serious attention, they can achieve in a season what would take years in the natural environment. Jo blogs could have the most varroa tolerant colony in the world at the bottom of his garden, the next day her and her combination of genetics will be hanging in a tree in a thunder storm. Proper breeders can and are achieving far more at a faster rate than Mother Nature will.

John Kefuss has breeders flocking to his operation to learn how to use natural selection as part of a breeding program.

But its horses for courses. Do you want racehorse bees that win races but require the constant attention of a vet; or do you want bees that never need attention in health terms, can give a pretty good yield and do no damage to the local ecology?

Its a choice that has to me made. You can't muddle up the two and that claim that because 1 fails 2 is bound to fail.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Being serious for a moment…There’s no answer to any realistic time scale. The theory bees will develop resistance is not new the US tried the Russian queens with 100 years more contact than UK bees and had poor results. Adapt or die…the simple fact is some species do die, adaption is not guaranteed. The plus side is there are some very good breeders/researchers in the US and Europe who are making progress. I still not sure this will be the final answer as we’ll end up with a pure race or line bred bee(buckfast) that’ll cope with varroa well and you may well be able to produce some good vsh f1 types. But then it’ll be back to mongrel type and varying results for the average UK beek.

On what possible rational grounds to you reject the scientific attestations (provided here) of numberous populations that have done exactly that?

Seriously? Do you think repeating it will somehow make it true?

 

[user 20297]

I can't recall to it being often used in that form on here

I'm pleased to be so wrong.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Not sure if that's a straw man or a misunderstanding - Talking of a species having an aim is not inferring conscious intent. They need to reproduce to survive. The method that allows them to reproduce the most effectively is what they will move towards.

Yes. The actual measure is 'turns available energy into viable offspring'; and the individuals that do that are the winners of the evolutionary competition.

If varroa breeds really successfully in one colony, the numbers may increase there and so it appears to be successful

Number of bees or varroa? I take it you mean bees.

but in reality that same success may result in the colony dying prematurely through overwhelming infestation meaning all those varroa die out too.

Yes. And when it does nature has removed that individual from the breeding pool, and its heritable traits will not be passed on. Repeated across a population (together with its opposite, the over-reproduction of useful traits) that results in the rise of resistance.

Just like bees need to swarm for the species to have more individual colony units, varroa need to spread between multiple colonies to persist.

And bees locate more and more tools to slow down and stop them doing that, mostly it seems by interrupting their breeding.

The pairing co-evolves in an 'arms race'. The prey MUST do that in order for the population to remain healthy. (Running up the up-escalator/the Red Queen hypothesis)

I know I keep saying the same things: but this little cluster of knowledge is needed to properly comprehend what happens and why. And it is for all reader's sake, including latecomers, not just yours Ian.

 

[Beesnaturally]

So that's another no - to you being unwilling to give us a definition,

1. of the word "(varroa) resistance";

2. and is Grooming/Biting part of the (resistance) mix?

The First enables us all to be discussing the same thing, and to focus our minds on it,
and the Second would enable beeks to identify the trait (if it's helpful) and select queens that exhibit it.

And you behaving like a civil univited person will get us all there faster.

 

[Beesnaturally]

... Russian bees which have only been within varroa's range for approaching 200 years now, and they show no significant tolerance / adaption!

Yes they are just like Western European bees who all fell into their graves immediately when not treated.

In Russia of course an alliance of reindeer and gnomes secrety fed them magic mushrooms for 200 years to keep them alive until westerners arrived with their veterinary potions.

What total, utterly illogical rubbish. If I was baffled before I understand now why you can't comprehend natural selection.

If you weren't already univited I'd univite you now on the basis of that post.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Ah! easy way to win an argument - gather a handful of fanboys around you to attack anyone who doesn't follow your mantra and ignore anyone who offers a counter argument

 

[Beesnaturally]

Which is, I believe, the essence of @Beesnaturally's theory for his bees surviving.

You have a way to go Ian. Take Darwinsm seriously and go study it for a week or two. Just the very basics, you don't need to know any detail of actual mechanisms.

Darwin is is high among the most lauded scientists every to have lived. There is a reason why. he found a simple explanation for a problem that seemed impossible. Take him serously.

Darwin supplies 'the essense' of my theory. When you understand Darwin, and you understand the forcefulness of the the mechanism he identified, you'll understand why I believe natural selection has steadily lowered my losses and raised my yields.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Ah! easy way to win an argument - gather a handful of fanboys around you to attack anyone who doesn't follow your mantra and ignore anyone who offers a counter argument

I do love the way some people seem oblivious to the fact that what they see as the faults of others are actually their very own weaknesses.

 

[Wilco]

Yes. The actual measure is 'turns available energy into viable offspring'; and the individuals that do that are the winners of the evolutionary competition.

Number of bees or varroa? I take it you mean bees.


Yes. And when it does nature has removed that individual from the breeding pool, and its heritable traits will not be passed on. Repeated across a population (together with its opposite, the over-reproduction of useful traits) that results in the rise of resistance.

And bees locate more and more tools to slow down and stop them doing that, mostly it seems by interrupting their breeding.

The pairing co-evolves in an 'arms race'. The prey MUST do that in order for the population to remain healthy. (Running up the up-escalator/the Red Queen hypothesis)

I know I keep saying the same things: but this little cluster of knowledge is needed to properly comprehend what happens and why. And it is for all reader's sake, including latecomers, not just yours Ian.

First bit - not just that. Lots of offspring/increasing in numbers does not always mean fittest for that environment if they overuse resources and destroy their environment.

Second bit - varroa.

Thirdly yes - my point again that just having lots of viable offspring doesn't make them the fittest (as per your theory about your varroa being less fecund).

Finally - only if they can actually do so genetically. As said by Ian, not everything ultimately adapts (this doesn't specifically refer to bees).

Posts #186 and #187... Are we attacking character here or just looking at the postulates and proposed evidences?

 

[Wilco]

You have a way to go Ian. Take Darwinsm seriously and go study it for a week or two. Just the very basics, you don't need to know any detail of actual mechanisms.

Darwin is is high among the most lauded scientists every to have lived. There is a reason why. he found a simple explanation for a problem that seemed impossible. Take him serously.

Darwin supplies 'the essense' of my theory. When you understand Darwin, and you understand the forcefulness of the the mechanism he identified, you'll understand why I believe natural selection has steadily lowered my losses and raised my yields.

I'm Will, not Ian.

I understand Darwin's postulates and the scientific method very well thank you. Science is about understanding mechanisms and challenging assumptions.

A few posts ago you were emphatic that you're not a scientist and not interested in being one when I was offering help to try and back up your theories about your bees. It's becoming clearer that I shouldn't have bothered to try.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

I do love the way some people seem oblivious to the fact that what they see as the faults of others are actually their very own weaknesses.

not really - I'm happy to argue the point with anyone, even blinkered fundamentalist crackpots
I haven't 'uninvited' you, have I?

 

[Beesnaturally]

First bit - not just that. Lots of offspring/increasing in numbers does not always mean fittest for that environment if they overuse resources and destroy their environment.

Is that a problem here? Do we have too many wild bees? Should we organise a cull?

Finally - only if they can actually do so genetically. As said by Ian, not everything ultimately adapts (this doesn't specifically refer to bees).

Bees have met varied and ever-evolving micropredators and parasites for 20 million years. They are equipped with the tools they need.

One of the first question asked of a particular trait is: Is it heritable? I know of no varroa-management trait that has been found not to be heritable. (Non-heritable traits tend not to hang around of course)

Posts #186 and #187... Are we attacking character here or just looking at the postulates and proposed evidences?

We are attacking the lack of understanding of some posters concerning the key mechanisms of Darwinism, and may be a bit caustic when people continually evade the need to engage and introduce irrelavances and plain untruths.

We are not especially framing things in terms of postulates. We are viewing what happens to wild./feral populations and why, and adducing evidence to help us separate facts from assersions.

And I'm using each post as an opportunity to return to the topic. Most people here are versed in the goings-on in individual colonies. This thread is concerned with what happens in local populations. Population dynamics is clearly unfamiliar ground in most cases.

------------

Here is a point that may not be commonly appreciated: when we speak of evolution, we are speaking of a process that occurs in multiple ways and on multiple levels and timescales. Darwin used it to account for the origins of species. Virologists use it to speak about mutating strains.

We are using it to account for the rise in a population of levels of pre-existing traits, behaviours governed by particular genes.

Prior to the arrival of varroa mite-fighting traits were held and expressed at low levels in the (wild) bee populations - low because they weren't needed. Via natural selection (favouring individuals holding the genes that code for them), and under 'pressure' from varroa, they have risen until common in the population.

So natural selection, and evolution, is occurring, without any mutations, and without any new species coming into existence.

Just thought I'd lay that out.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Do we have too many wild bees?

do we have as many as you (without any corroboration) claim?

 

[madasafish]

If we had as many bees as the words on this thread , we would not have any shortage but a huge surplus.

 

[Erichalfbee]

Please.
There are maybe six members contributing to this blog who seem to be in some sort of agreement with each other.
I don’t think the OP ever meant this thread to be criticised but the subject amicably discussed by other like minded souls.
Can I ask the others to go play somewhere else or play nicely or the blog is in real danger of being closed.
Thank you

 

[BaconWizard]

Beekeepers are afraid of natural selection. Perhaps due to a combination of a loss of control, 30 years of education about treatments (or your bees die) or fear of commercial loss. All understandable. But it does stop beekeepers learning from long standing survivor stock that is either unmanaged or feral. One of the best examples is the work Tom Seeley researched in the Arnot Forest written up in the The Lives of Bees. Only some bees have the right genetics / mechanism to control their varroa population. In the UK, we will get increasing amounts of information from the observations that Filipe Salbany is carrying out in the tree cavities of the Blenheim Estate. Perhaps the purest example of natural selection in the UK? Or right up there with the wild bees in the Snowdonia forests.

Without understanding the mechanism that honeybees are deploying to control their varroa, "varroa resistance" is a nebulous term that's hard to teach to beekeepers. A key trait of all of the long standing (untreated) survivor stock, is high levels of uncapping & recapping. This controls the mite population through the season and consequently virus levels in the colony. Excellent research from Prof Stephen Martin's team in this area.

Most beekeepers don't want to put chemical miticides (pesticides / insecticides) on their colonies. They just don't know how to avoid doing so. Natural selection is the bluntest of tools towards achieving fit honeybees that can look after themselves. So we offer training to our beekeepers on the steps to get there (Westerham Beekeepers -see website for earlier parts of the project). Eventually, we have found that beekeepers completely grasp the natural selection nettle over a winter colony loss as having the wrong genetics (unfit to cope with [name your pathogen]). It becomes obvious that one wouldn't have wanted to breed from that colony.........

that’s all fine and I broadly agree.

But 2 of likely many problems are 1) we are all subject in-part to what our neighbouring beeks are doing or not-doing, via their drones and also transfer of diseases through robbing etc.

And 2) Simply going treatment-free and accepting the losses would bankrupt many businesses or be prohibitive for self-sustaining hobbies.

I would LOVE to be treatment free, but of 2 hives, my losses are likely to be 100%. Meanwhile, all my neighbouring beeks are gonna regard my colonies as a disease risk.

It requires a country-wide or at least region-wide policy to be in-place. Good luck making THAT happen.

I’d be up for it, but I wonder how many people it requires to follow a different path before it renders the effort fruitless?

 

[robinharman]

Just wondering.
If bees do develop a resistance, do varroa also develop to counter this resistance?
Asking for a friend

 

[RJC]

An interesting thread (in part...) On evolution through Natural Selection, aka Dawinism (or Wallace-ism, who came up with the theory at the same time, but was pipped to publication by Darwin when he realised Wallace was on the same track), then yes, plenty of evidence that works. It works because organisms respond to selection pressure. Just remember though that keeping bees in a hive (irrespective of whether treated or not) is also exerting a selection pressure. So, bees evolving to cope in natural habitats with pathogens may not do so well in hives, and potentially vice versa.