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.

 

[user 6228]

....they are careful formal reports of the data obtained from a study. If, like me, you have a strong faith in science, they are your primary source of information. If a scientific study disagrees with something I believe, then I alter my beliefs. Its that simple.

....

Oh if were so simple! Reviewers of scientific papers are not omniscient gods. To put it bluntly peer reviewed scientific papers are not gospel. And if a biologist starts writing outside of their box, e.g. heat transfer, be very very wary indeed.

 

[Ian123]

I think you have assumed that any and all human provided accommodation is always an improvement on what the Feral/wild bees can find themselves. Polystyrene hives only get part way to the luxury of a tree hollow. Will you chop down all the remaining trees for the bees own good?
Thin walled hives are an invention of 80 years ago, based on some very poor research and some conclusion leaping by interpreters of the research, maintained the repetition of a mantra that requires the suspension of the most very basic law of physics.

Human provided accommodation is obviously not better in all cases, but the vast majority unless you’re in Kent of course.Bees in traditional thin walled hives survive far better than any wild colony in the majority of cases. As to the luxury of a tree hollow, I’ve seen many with splits that allow water ingress, exposure of the colony or simply structurally fail. You’re also assuming bees prefer tree hollows, in some parts of the world holes in the ground are also much used. Mother Nature is not uniform or forgiving, bees survive and positively thrive in wooden hives, I also brought my first polys off Murray about 20 years ago and added kingsman slabs to a nuc in the 80s…… just fyi!

 

[Beesnaturally]

Oh if were so simple! Reviewers of scientific papers are not omniscient gods. To put it bluntly peer reviewed scientific papers are not gospel. And if a biologist starts writing outside of their box, e.g. heat transfer, be very very wary indeed.

I agree, you need to be in the right box.

Any scientific paper published in a reputable journal is a data report. It tells you exactly how the data was collected, and how it has been processed. It then adds an opinion ('discussion') as to the relevance of the result.

That's the format. its designed that way (or rather has evolved that way) because it is the best way to get to the facts under study.

Its the careful presentation of a study, or a meta-study, that is designed to be replicable - so that others can make exactly the same study or perform the same tests, and compare results.

Errors in data collection are rare, although the method of collection can quite often be criticised.

An error in data analysis is generally rare. The processes are very standardised.

The discussion part may, to some, appear flawed. It may underplay some things, overplay others. But... it is not there to make a claim. Its there to be the opening part of further discussion.

It will be carefully written, with all logical steps laid out, with distinctions drawn between claims that can be backed up and those that are opinions. References will be supplied to other papers (and books) that can be checked for relevance and reliability.

Everything is carefully laid out to make what is being suggest is shown by the results checkable. And it will be done in the clear knowledge that others may well check it, both for coherence and logic, and may may re-run the experiment.

The pre-publication peer (in-field) reviewers' job is to make sure the format is adhered to, that claims are backed up by references, and that the opinions offered to explain the relevance of the result do not overstep their limits. Its not to say whether the results are right or wrong; just to say whether it meets the standards of a scientific report, and appears, to an expert eye, plausible.

This system is responsible for the many miracles of modern knowledge and technology. It is well-proven to work well. Don't knock it till you truly understand it.

 

[Beesnaturally]

I think you have assumed that any and all human provided accommodation is always an improvement on what the Feral/wild bees can find themselves.

I have?

Bees take what they can find. Early in the season it might be cushy berths; later things get harder. Hollows in living trees are not, unless well ventilated dry. Living timber is laden with moisture all year round; there are not many dead trees left standing nowadays.

Well ventilated often means at risk of predators.

I agree with general proposition that a dry hive is pretty much a luxury home.

Polystyrene hives only get part way to the luxury of a tree hollow.

I've yet to advocate using polystyrene hives.

Will you chop down all the remaining trees for the bees own good?

Predicated on the two errors above compounded; I don't suppose that daft suggestion needs a response

Thin walled hives are an invention of 80 years ago, based on some very poor research and some conclusion leaping by interpreters of the research, maintained the repetition of a mantra that requires the suspension of the most very basic law of physics.

Hmmm

 

[user 6228]

I agree, you need to be in the right box.

Any scientific paper published in a reputable journal is a data report. It tells you exactly how the data was collected, and how it has been processed. It then adds an opinion ('discussion') as to the relevance of the result.

That's the format. its designed that way (or rather has evolved that way) because it is the best way to get to the facts under study.

Its the careful presentation of a study, or a meta-study, that is designed to be replicable - so that others can make exactly the same study or perform the same tests, and compare results.

Errors in data collection are rare, although the method of collection can quite often be criticised.

An error in data analysis is generally rare. The processes are very standardised.

The discussion part may, to some, appear flawed. It may underplay some things, overplay others. But... it is not there to make a claim. Its there to be the opening part of further discussion.

It will be carefully written, with all logical steps laid out, with distinctions drawn between claims that can be backed up and those that are opinions. References will be supplied to other papers (and books) that can be checked for relevance and reliability.

Everything is carefully laid out to make what is being suggest is shown by the results checkable. And it will be done in the clear knowledge that others may well check it, both for coherence and logic, and may may re-run the experiment.

The pre-publication peer (in-field) reviewers' job is to make sure the format is adhered to, that claims are backed up by references, and that the opinions offered to explain the relevance of the result do not overstep their limits. Its not to say whether the results are right or wrong; just to say whether it meets the standards of a scientific report, and appears, to an expert eye, plausible.

This system is responsible for the many miracles of modern knowledge and technology. It is well-proven to work well. Don't knock it till you truly understand it.

I agree, you need to be in the right box.

Any scientific paper published in a reputable journal is a data report. It tells you exactly how the data was collected, and how it has been processed. It then adds an opinion ('discussion') as to the relevance of the result.

That's the format. its designed that way (or rather has evolved that way) because it is the best way to get to the facts under study.

Its the careful presentation of a study, or a meta-study, that is designed to be replicable - so that others can make exactly the same study or perform the same tests, and compare results.

Errors in data collection are rare, although the method of collection can quite often be criticised.

An error in data analysis is generally rare. The processes are very standardised.

The discussion part may, to some, appear flawed. It may underplay some things, overplay others. But... it is not there to make a claim. Its there to be the opening part of further discussion.

It will be carefully written, with all logical steps laid out, with distinctions drawn between claims that can be backed up and those that are opinions. References will be supplied to other papers (and books) that can be checked for relevance and reliability.

Everything is carefully laid out to make what is being suggest is shown by the results checkable. And it will be done in the clear knowledge that others may well check it, both for coherence and logic, and may may re-run the experiment.

The pre-publication peer (in-field) reviewers' job is to make sure the format is adhered to, that claims are backed up by references, and that the opinions offered to explain the relevance of the result do not overstep their limits. Its not to say whether the results are right or wrong; just to say whether it meets the standards of a scientific report, and appears, to an expert eye, plausible.

This system is responsible for the many miracles of modern knowledge and technology. It is well-proven to work well. Don't knock it till you truly understand it.

you mean I need to write papers, get them reviewed and then write reviews on other scientists papers before I can truly understand? seems a tall order

 

[Beesnaturally]

you mean I need to write papers, get them reviewed and then write reviews on other scientists papers before I can truly understand? seems a tall order

Not at all. But understand something before criticizing it is surely sensible. You may need to do some work - research and think awhile. But you'll be rewarded with the ability to comprehend why the information contained in, and derived from scientific papers is usually the best form of knowledge going.

And you won't fall for, and thoughtlessly regurgitate, the common internet narratives that try to dismiss the system any more.

The global scientific machine is, as fas as we can tell, by far the best knowledge gathering and sifting instrument in the Universe. Think about that.

 

[user 6228]

so you think questioning the validity of the conclusions of papers is best left to academics and other researchers?

 

[Beesnaturally]

so you think questioning the validity of the conclusions of papers is best left to academics and other researchers?

I haven't said that. But how much you can take from a reading (of most things) is obviously dependent on how much you are in a position to judge its worth. Its is often the case that informed non-scientists can spot flaws in the research, or critique its value. But it has to be done on a case by case basis. You can't just blanket condemn all scientific work and the whole of the scientific machine.

And that is the purpose of a study and report. Just to say: 'we did this, here are the results: what do you reckon?' To anybody.

Btw 'conclusions' are more generally seen (and named as) 'discussions'.

The best any study can say is: we did this, here is how we did it, and this is what happened on this _occasion_. We think the reasons for seeing that result might be x. Its rare that that supplies conclusive evidence of anything wider. But it can supply strong evidence toward a proposition. A collection of similar and related studies (together with a broad understanding of the field) can strengthen the proposition. Eventually it may be accepted as extremely likely - and much more likely than any competing explanation - to be a sound reflection of the real world. It will assume the status of a well-demonstrated scientific fact.

One interesting feature of science is the gross asymmetry between the assembly of a working fact, a likely true proposition about the world, and its destruction. It takes a long time to gain the status of a confident scientific fact; but just one study can smash it to pieces. And at a deep level that is what scientists are trying to do: to smash existing facts to pieces. Those that survive this process are the hardy winners.

Personally I find most value in reading scientific papers (and I don't read many at all) in seeing confirmation, and the occasional widening, of my understanding of the principles underlying the field that interests me.

 

[user 6228]

I haven't said that. But how much you can take from a reading (of most things) is obviously dependent on how much you are in a position to judge its worth.

So how do you know if you are in position to judge its worth?

 

[Beesnaturally]

So how do you know if you are in position to judge its worth?

That's a good question. I suspect, by a combination of accident of birth and subsequent experience, some people are better at it than others. But that doesn't answer your question. And I'm not sure what you want from me, or how I can help. Are you asking for advice?

I think my personal approach is based on knowledge of my experience and proven capability in academic terms, work, hobbies, interests, and life. I recognise I was very lucky in the accident of birth thing too. So I have confidence born of knowledge of my abilities, and my experiences. I know something of my limitations. I feel I can, and fairly do, evaluate my limits in any field.

More specifically, when I read things and recognise I understand them well because of a concordance of knowledge and reasoning. I can think I'm suitably aligned to the work under study.

That's my attempt. I don't think it's an easy question with a simple anwer. At least, not for me.

How would you suggest we evaluate our ability to judge the worth of a study?

 

[Erichalfbee]

How would you suggest we evaluate our ability to judge the worth of a study?

A poll?

 

[Beesnaturally]

From a distant thread....

The more you mollycoddle, the more you undercut the winnowing of the weak, the more you damage the population.

But that is my hobbyhorse which strictly must be kept confined to my personal blog. It doesn't belong here; no Sir!

Beebe:
"Your idea would be better were it not for the fact that it's you that put your bees in your hives and therefore Nature didn't select the survival parameters.
If the bees had first chosen the hive and then they failed to survive within it, what you say would would make more sense to me.
Some wild bees will choose a nest that is better insulated and possibly drier than strictly necessary; if such a colony survives, should they be exterminated because they are weakening the genetics with their poor choice? "

This is true. How about traps and empty hive fly-ins?

I think the key thing to remember is that I couldn't do that. I had to collect as many colonies as possible in order to have a few survive without mollycoddling.

In an ideal world I might work your way. But we don't live in such a world. Hopefully as wild bees thrive around me there will be more (more-or-less natural) selection of sites. But also: there will be selection of man-made sites - soffits and chimneys etc; and there are now few large tree cavities. So like it or not and given the best will in the world, we can't avoid a heavy human touch.

However: what I can (and others can) do is stop genetically poisoning wild bees, so that they struggle to live at all wherever we are nearby. And I can make new colonies from proven long-lasting thriving non-mollycoddled colonies, and requeen, in the manner of traditional husbandry, which will assist the development and maintenance of wild bees.

And that - the do-able - makes perfect sense.

 

[user 20297]

A poll?

Can we combine that with a poll of the worth of @Beesnaturally ....sorry Beesnaturally.

 

[Erichalfbee]

Can we combine that with a poll of the worth of @Beesnaturally ....sorry Beesnaturally.

I’m just glad of my Amlodipine

 

[Ian123]

I’m just glad of my Amlodipine

Just ensure you have the prescription on repeat.

 

[user 20297]

Just ensure you have the prescription on repeat.

...and can you get a bit extra for your online acquaintances please?

 

[Beesnaturally]

I’m just glad of my Amlodipine

I'm sure between us we could arrange a renewable alternative...

 

[Erichalfbee]

I'm sure between us we could arrange a renewable alternative...

I tried that

 

[Bumbling Keeper]

OH! Are we going to mention the results of non-treatment (gleaned from the European Studies) which are increased aggression, to a degree that the researchers couldn't approach the hives (from 3 fields away) without being stung, and no available honey to harvest?

Sounds like a very interesting study - do you have a link to it?

 

[Ian123]

This is an interesting read…..
https://thoughtscapism.com/2017/04/10/treatment-free-beekeepers-give-varroa-mite-free-rein/