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.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Wilco and jenkinsbrynmair, as civility remains beyond you both I would like to ask not to post here again unless specifically invited again. Thanks

 

[Swarm]

Try to remain polite.
That's a polite request, you can disagree without all the name calling.

 

[Wilco]

The criticism of my post (now # here: Wild/Feral Survivor-Thrivers: Naturally Selected Resistant Bees.) amounts to a number of diseases named which are presumably intended to be counter-examples. Added to the above were Polio, TB, Typhoid, cholera.

The main observation to make here is that all but one are human diseases (though typhoid affects cattle too, and there may be other similar cross-species examples here), and... humans are not natural.

While quibbles can be raised about that, in this context, by definition, 'natural' means what goes on when humans are not interfering with things.

Remote uninhabited island: 'natural'

Inhabited, farmed and hunted island, not natural.

Now: 2 points to add: first: humans do their very best, and are very good at, evading the cruelty of natural selection. We've made a fine art of allowing the weak to reproduce, and coping with the consequences. We've taken out the large predators that would winnow us, and discovered, and held in folklore and science, massive amounts of wisdom about how to defeat diseases.

We have been so successful at this that, secondly, we have taken over the planet, and spread our germs around like there's no tomorrow.

Which, if you happened to be say a Native in the Americas in the 16th and 17th centuries, had the very natural effect of eliminating the weakest 70 or 80% of the human population.

My point is: we are a special case, and examples of diseases that we perpetuate by avoiding natural selection should be used as examples of what happens in the natural world.

Now: in the cases of rinderpest and cattle typhoid, we are, again, the agents; first of the spread of these diseases from their original locations, second to their perpetuation in our husbandry of domestic stock. As well as unhealthy farming practices by virtue of sheer geographic range we pick up and spread new variations of micro-organism.

So, again, we are not looking at what happens in wild populations.

In wild populations what happens is that an evolutionary process reduces what is at first a devastating new energy-predator to a minor irritant, and often eliminates it altogether. The process is ugly, and to a farming mind, wasteful. But it gets the job done.

And... to bring this back to my point, anything we do that interferes with that process, undercuts it. Vaccines just like varroa treatments do this.

You haven't got a clue about Rinderpest have you?

 

[Beesnaturally]

You haven't got a clue about Rinderpest have you?

I am going to propose to Wilco that we do this privately and if we reach any conclusions I'll post them here.

 

[Erichalfbee]

I am going to propose to Wilco that we do this privately and if we reach any conclusions I'll post them here.

So what you are proposing is a platform for your own ideas without dissenting?
That’s not what fora are about. You have your own website for that where you are completely in control

 

[Beesnaturally]

So what you are proposing is a platform for your own ideas without dissenting?
That’s not what fora are about. You have your own website for that where you are completely in control

I'm trying to find a recipe for a friendly and constructive discussion space. I can't do that if people post aggressively. As per your suggestion I can write to ask them to not post, and so far that has worked well. However following my invitation to discuss an issue here (since I'm not allowed to discuss it where it arose) we were straight back to rudeness.

It seemed to me to be constuctive to chat in private so as to keep this space friendly, and we reach a point where we can offer a joint statement post it here for others to see.

I'm fine with dissent. I'm not fine with rudeness or obstructiveness. And, to repeat ,it is at your suggestion that I ask some people nicely not to post here.

If you don't mind my saying so, I think things are working well, and your recipe will mess with that - probably to the point where you'll close the thread.

Again, you seem eager to be rid of me?

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Happy enough to hijack other people's threads though
obviously doesn't like debate
or being challenged on his claims
funny - I thought that was the idea of fora
(or forums, both are correct)
Constantly attacking/aggressively questioning a moderator is bad form as well

 

[Erichalfbee]

If you don't mind my saying so, I think things are working well, and your recipe will mess with that - probably to the point where you'll close the thread.

You and another might discuss the idea off forum then you will announce a joint statement?
Ho hum.

 

[Erichalfbee]

However following my invitation to discuss an issue here (since I'm not allowed to discuss it where it arose)

I would have left it where it was if you hadn’t prefaced it with your first sentence


I do understand that I'm not really allowed to say this thing, so I'm going to say it just once then retreat.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Happy enough to hijack other people's threads though
obviously doesn't like debate
or being challenged on his claims
funny - I thought that was the idea of fora 44
(or forums, both are correct)
Constantly attacking/aggressively questioning a moderator is bad form as well

I'm not welcome to discuss my thinking on other threads - the effect seems to be to hijack them, and I find that fair enough. It was suggested by the management that if I made a blog I should be able to offer a space to discuss apects of natural selection and beekeeping.

It was precisely to avoid that that I invited discussion of yesterday's topic here - something that has proved to be a mistake.

If you wish to open out topics of interest to yourself you could do so on threads you make, and if you invite my participation, I'll join in - as long as things remain constructive.

Can I remind you I have asked you not to post here just today, both here and by PM.

 

[Beesnaturally]

You and another might discuss the idea off forum then you will announce a joint statement?
Ho hum.

if you want to make a thread specifically to discuss that issue in public then you can make a thread to do so. I don't want my blog ruined, and perhaps closed by ill-mannered posts.

Is that unreasonable?

 

[Erichalfbee]

I’m not going to close it
If you think a post breaks forum rules then report it.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Can we leave my blog alone now please, until somebody is ready to have an on-topic conversation (Beebe had just begun an interesting one). I'm sorry everybody that I made a poor decision that has interrupted civilised conversation.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Can I remind you I have asked you not to post here just today, both here and by PM

I decided the best thing to do with comments like that is ignore them
It's a free forum, I'll post wherever I want

 

[user 20297]

I wonder if the answer is along the lines of how they're tackling malaria... some how make either m or f mite sterile.

The original post which took the discussion off course was about vaccinating queen bees to prevent AFB. That technique is something which has already been stated as being theoretical for practical use. It would be brilliant if some organism such as the bacterium that kills waxmoth larvae was discovered and isolated.

 

[Swarm]

I decided the best thing to do with comments like that is ignore them
It's a free forum, I'll post wherever I want

 

[Erichalfbee]

The original post which took the discussion off course It would be brilliant if some organism such as the bacterium that kills waxmoth larvae was discovered and isolated.

It’s not the bacteria that kills the larvae it is the Bt toxin already crystallised amongst the spores which does the job. These toxins are produced during the sporulation phase of the bacteria as parasporal crystals. So the toxin (the lethal agent) is already there when you spray your frames.
When the wax moth larvae (not the eggs) ingests the spores it's also ingesting the toxin which stops the larvae from feeding (within hours), which then dies from starvation. This paves the way for the emerging bacterium to have a free feed on the tissue of the dead larvae.

 

[user 20297]

It’s not the bacteria that kills the larvae it is the Bt toxin already crystallised amongst the spores which does the job. These toxins are produced during the sporulation phase of the bacteria as parasporal crystals. So the toxin (the lethal agent) is already there when you spray your frames.
When the wax moth larvae (not the eggs) ingests the spores it's also ingesting the toxin which stops the larvae from feeding (within hours), which then dies from starvation. This paves the way for the emerging bacterium to have a free feed on the tissue of the dead larvae.

......as in, its not the bee that stings, it's the melittin in the venom.

 

[Erichalfbee]

......as in, its not the bee that stings, it's the melittin in the venom.

Just thought you might be interested.

 

[Antipodes]

I've no axe to grid here, but if you are going to pile in an attack, then do it for the right reason.
There's no disputing the underlying principle of Natural Selection.
And where there is the isolation and enough beekeepers are on board, it is happening.
Speak to the Mid and North Wales associations that have been treatment free for some time now.

Bob Binnie reckons there seems to be more flexibility these days with varroa treatments ...you know, compared to when it first came to the States. They've been treating over there all the time they've had varroa as far as I'm aware. Aussie honey bees, not having ever been exposed to varroa, apparently don't cope at all well with them (after being taken to the States).
In addition to deliberately untreated colonies, it seems there are colonies in hive boxes (and hollows/buildings) in all honey bee areas that are neglected (and not treated) so surely even with much treatment taking place there is still honey bee natural selection happening? Sure, there is also natural selection occurring with the mites.
In NSW (Australia) it is compulsory (has been for some time....pre-varroa) to have all honey bee hives registered with the government. It is also compulsory to regularly inspect hives for disease. With a big team involved in the hunt to find the varroa mite there (doing a great job by the way) and trying to track down every colony, they are of course even finding (essentially) neglected registered ones.