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.

 

[Ian123]

There’s many reports of individuals or areas with natural varroa tolerant bees, I’m not referring to breeding groups. The thought that bees will find a natural balance with varroa is nothing new. In the US queens from the Promorsky region in Russia were imported, Varroa entered this area around the 1900s. So ball park 100 years before the much of the UK, They’ve been trailed and researched
https://entomologytoday.org/2017/04...y-bees-might-not-prevent-varroa-infestations/There’s several other trials/references and again they’ve been in contact with varroa 100years!!! longer.

I can’t find any instance’s of bees from these areas being taken and field trialed by researchers and finding they are tolerant. We’ve seen endless claims made and none have resulted in the silver bullet. As above these instances appear beekeeper/environmental/virus related not the bees development of tolerance.

For example.
1. The much quoted Arnot forest bees failed in field trials and testing.
2. Promorsky queens imported into the US did not succeed as hoped.
3. Lusbys tolerant bees and small cell, you could write a whole essay on that
4. Ron Hoskins bees in the Uk for decades claimed as tolerant. When researchers finally got there they found a lesser form of DWV. He’s now breeding virus resistant bees!
5. I’m pretty sure the French Avingnon bees got trialed and failed as well but I can’t find that atm.
So there’s 4/5 instances of failed claims is there any wonder people want more info!
As to the Blenheim bees there are several claims, DNA results appear to be very slow for this new eco type bee. There’s a large BFA member who has hives butting up to the estate to top it off But I guess there’s a humid valley separating them! For a man pulling survivor bees out of trees I’m at a loss to explain why philippe needed to crowd fund to replace his bees that died…..

 

[Wilco]

Things happen:

Myxomatosis in rabbits; a virus intentionally transferred to a naive host.

"The long-term failure of this strategy (of permanently eradicating wild rabbit populations) has been due to natural selective pressures on both the rabbit and virus populations, which resulted in the emergence of myxomatosis-resistant animals and attenuated virus variants. The process is regarded as a classical example of host–pathogen coevolution following cross-species transmission of a pathogen" (Wikipedia)

Can any scientist explain to me why it is impossible for that to occur between the varroa mite and the Western honeybee?

Not impossible just if it occurs it's likely to be much slower in a mite than a virus although in this case it's a dsDNA virus so mutations would accumulate more slowly than in something like Covid. Slightly different pathways to it as well.

The question is not whether it's possible, more whether it's probable/actually happening. The main selective pressure is what enables the mites or virus to replicate and spread the most. If individuals being less severely affected means the pathogen can replicate more and spread more easily then it will follow that path. I'm not convinced that this is as strong a selection pressure for varroa as for a virus but it is possible. It may even be there's a selection pressure for varroa fecundity to vary through the year- if the aim of varroa is to spread between colonies: low varroa numbers autumn/winter so colonies more likely to overwinter successfully, higher fecundity spring summer when greater chance of transmission to other colonies. However this is mere speculation on my part.

Myxo didn't have a 100% fatality rate to begin with so it would never fully eradicate rabbits...

 

[Wilco]

Its very kind of you, but the data I want (in no particular order) is:

1) did a reasonable proportion come through winter fit and ready to go?
2) did a reasonable proportion give me plenty of honey (all being considered)?
3) Are a reasonable number giving me honey year-on-year?

This data (which is in my head and the number of buckets in my cupboard/sales from my spreadsheet)
yields:
4) Which ones are gonna be mums this year?

And that's all I need to know.

Data analysis last year supplied:

1) Pretty good, but please see to the damn mice guards next September
2) My back hurts! (but then it was a very sunny summer)
3) Yes, a good proportion are high, and I've already had 2 or 3 lifts from some
4) That one and that one.

I don't care how they do it. I care that they do it.

So that's one side. The other side is asking myself the question: "Do you belief the science when it says adaptation will occur/has occurred/here is why?

The answer to that is: yes I do. I'm not a scientist: but I have perfectly sufficient understanding of natural selection for the fittest strains (and a great faith in science).

And,

I don't have a better (any) answer to the question: 'why are my untreated hives thriving?' except: that fundamental, foundational science is applicable and right.

Also: if I did what you suggest and performed some home-made science how long would it take for somebody to accuse me of doing it wrongly, or making up my results?

Your call, offer open if anything changes.

As for how long before challenged, that would depend on how rigorous we were with the approach, what we found from the data and how valid our discussion/conclusions were. Studies are rarely perfect, many published studies are incredibly poorly done and science is about challenging things so some would still be against or questioning it. However, I'd be fighting your corner too if the findings backed it up, although that probably counts for little, and I think others on here might too.

 

[user 20297]

Not impossible just if it occurs it's likely to be much slower in a mite than a virus although in this case it's a dsDNA virus so mutations would accumulate more slowly than in something like Covid. Slightly different pathways to it as well.

The question is not whether it's possible, more whether it's probable/actually happening. The main selective pressure is what enables the mites or virus to replicate and spread the most. If individuals being less severely affected means the pathogen can replicate more and spread more easily then it will follow that path. I'm not convinced that this is as strong a selection pressure for varroa as for a virus but it is possible. It may even be there's a selection pressure for varroa fecundity to vary through the year- if the aim of varroa is to spread between colonies: low varroa numbers autumn/winter so colonies more likely to overwinter successfully, higher fecundity spring summer when greater chance of transmission to other colonies. However this is mere speculation on my part.

Myxo didn't have a 100% fatality rate to begin with so it would never fully eradicate rabbits...

Thank-you for the reply.

I think we can be reasonably sure that varroa are free of any conscious intent and therefore don't have any target aim or strategy to spread between colonies.

Like all organisms they simply use their gene-controlled, physical, physiological and behavioural attributes to survive long enough to allow them to reproduce as much as their living environment will allow. If anything hinders or stops that process, as we all know, the mix and balance of genes within the population will be disturbed.

The process of adaptation between the varroa and bees can't possibly not be happening, but as @Beesnaturally has explained, things are complicated by other factors, perhaps the most important of these being that the varroa and the bees must also be having an adaptive reaction many other things; perhaps most significantly, to the use of chemicals.

I can understand why, in general, beekeepers aren't at all that keen on leaving this to natural forces. I can also see why some people may think that this will only happen within a geological timescale. But I don't get why so many people can't even accept that the well established concept of Natural Selection is not applicable in the situation this blog describes.

 

[Beesnaturally]

In the US queens from the Promorsky region in Russia were imported, Varroa entered this area around the 1900s. So ball park 100 years before the much of the UK, They’ve been trailed and researched
https://entomologytoday.org/2017/04...y-bees-might-not-prevent-varroa-infestations/There’s several other trials/references and again they’ve been in contact with varroa 100years!!! longer.

Oh dear. You really should read the peice:

From your link (from a non-bee-scientist reporter) (but she gets it about right:

"The number of mites hitching rides into to a colony on foraging bees is key because the hygienic behaviors that suppress Varroa infestations in Russian honey bee hives may not be effective against these hitchhiking mites. Indeed, DeGrandi-Hoffman and colleagues found that at a study site where similar numbers of foragers with mites were observed at Russian and European honey bee colonies, the two types of colonies showed similar levels of mite infestations. At another study site, where fewer foragers with mites were collected at Russian hives than at European hives, the Russian colonies had smaller Varroa populations.

This suggests that when there are few foraging workers transferring mites between colonies, the Russian honey bee’s mite-resistant behaviors are able to suppress Varroa populations relative to mite populations in European colonies. But at locations or times when there are greater numbers of foragers with mites, Russian honey bees may be just as susceptible to Varroa infestations as non-mite resistant bees."

From the originating paper:

Abstract​

Varroa (Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman) is an external parasite of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) and a leading cause of colony losses worldwide. Varroa populations can be controlled with miticides, but mite-resistant stocks such as the Russian honey bee (RHB) also are available. Russian honey bee and other mite-resistant stocks limit Varroa population growth by affecting factors that contribute to mite reproduction. However, mite population growth is not entirely due to reproduction. Numbers of foragers with mites (FWM) entering and leaving hives also affect the growth of mite populations.

If FWM significantly contribute to Varroa population growth, mite numbers in RHB colonies might not differ from unselected lines (USL). Foragers with mites were monitored at the entrances of RHB and USL hives from August to November, 2015, at two apiary sites. At site 1, RHB colonies had fewer FWM than USL and smaller phoretic mite populations. Russian honey bee also had fewer infested brood cells and lower percentages with Varroa offspring than USL. At site 2, FWM did not differ between RHB and USL, and phoretic mite populations were not significantly different. At both sites, there were sharp increases in phoretic mite populations from September to November that corresponded with increasing numbers of FWM. Under conditions where FWM populations are similar between RHB and USL, attributes that contribute to mite resistance in RHB may not keep Varroa population levels below that of USL.

That is pretty much the opposite of your reading.

I can’t find any instance’s of bees from these areas being taken and field trialed by researchers and finding they are tolerant. We’ve seen endless claims made and none have resulted in the silver bullet. As above these instances appear beekeeper/environmental/virus related not the bees development of tolerance.

First, there may be some you have missed. You seem super-eager to 'find' a particular result. maybe you should read a bit more widely.

Second: there is no silver bullet. Your need a continuous process of improvement in each generation. Either you breed that or you let natural selection do it for you. You need to be doing that _in the company of the mites you will find at the place the qeens end up living_. Why? because the mix of techniches and strategies the bred resistant bees will be using will be specitice to those mite. Arms race, remember? Its an ever-shifting picture.

For example.
1. The much quoted Arnot forest bees failed in field trials and testing.

Seee above, last point: and also this was early in the journey to build resistance

4. Ron Hoskins bees in the Uk for decades claimed as tolerant. When researchers finally got there they found a lesser form of DWV. He’s now breeding virus resistant bees!

Hoskins is a breeder. That's not what I advocate and argue for here.

As to the Blenheim bees there are several claims, DNA results appear to be very slow for this new eco type bee. There’s a large BFA member who has hives butting up to the estate to top it off

That won't be helping of course, but it may not be fatal. Can you give an account of why, and how to evaluate it?

Please try to focus on the proposed explanation for the oft-reported phenomena of bees that live wild, and need no treatment in the UK and Ireland, as well as those populations reported to be ongoing, as seen in scientific papers supplied to this very blog.

Again: core explanation:

...the potency of natural selection...

Heath-giving traits (here, the varoa defence mechanisms) are heritable.

The least heathy bees die before reproducing. Zero inheritance, gene pool/next generation not supplied with inadequate genes

The most healthy bees supply the most genes to the gene pool. That is, the heath-giving (heritable) traits. Most healthy genes (traits) supplied in greatest number to the gene pool (next generation).

(in the middle, the more healthy traits, the more genes are passed into the next generation.)

Given natural selection those genes supplying health giving traits are thereby concentrated in the next generation; while those supplying the least healthy traits are eliminated.

Beautiful, no?

This happens in every single free-living organism. If it didn't, the species would become extinct.

Its not a question of belief. Its a question of does Darwinism apply? The scientific answer to that is, absolutely, its in no doubt at all.

That is the proposition: that Darwin applies as the explanation for the phenomona.

Yes, there are many many claims by amateurs that turn out to be ill-founded and possibly false. There are always daft people saying daft things: that's the world we live in. So what. So we focus only on scientific studies AND READ THEM CAREFULLY

What this thread is about is how to maximise your chances of succeeding in being treatment free, in the knowledge that science reports it is sometimes seen.

To do that we need to understand well how natural selection works (and that is easy - I just gave a summary above - but some people may need to study and think about it.); and, how to maximise our chances of giving it a chance.

THAT IS OUR TOPIC. PLEASE FOCUS ON THE TOPIC!

 

[Ian123]

But I don't get why so many people can't even accept that the well established concept of Natural Selection is not applicable in the situation this blog describes.

Many of us get the concept but probably have a more realistic view on the time scale?

 

[user 20297]

Many of us get the concept but probably have a more realistic view on the time scale?

What do you think is a realistic timescale? We're told to rotate our chemical, varroa treatments every year in order to avoid the development of resistance in varroa. Adaptation has to be quick or a species will die off.

 

[Ian123]

Oh dear. You really should read the peice:

From your link (from a non-bee-scientist reporter) (but she gets it about right:

"The number of mites hitching rides into to a colony on foraging bees is key because the hygienic behaviors that suppress Varroa infestations in Russian honey bee hives may not be effective against these hitchhiking mites. Indeed, DeGrandi-Hoffman and colleagues found that at a study site where similar numbers of foragers with mites were observed at Russian and European honey bee colonies, the two types of colonies showed similar levels of mite infestations. At another study site, where fewer foragers with mites were collected at Russian hives than at European hives, the Russian colonies had smaller Varroa populations.

This suggests that when there are few foraging workers transferring mites between colonies, the Russian honey bee’s mite-resistant behaviors are able to suppress Varroa populations relative to mite populations in European colonies. But at locations or times when there are greater numbers of foragers with mites, Russian honey bees may be just as susceptible to Varroa infestations as non-mite resistant bees."

From the originating paper:

Abstract​

Varroa (Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman) is an external parasite of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) and a leading cause of colony losses worldwide. Varroa populations can be controlled with miticides, but mite-resistant stocks such as the Russian honey bee (RHB) also are available. Russian honey bee and other mite-resistant stocks limit Varroa population growth by affecting factors that contribute to mite reproduction. However, mite population growth is not entirely due to reproduction. Numbers of foragers with mites (FWM) entering and leaving hives also affect the growth of mite populations.

If FWM significantly contribute to Varroa population growth, mite numbers in RHB colonies might not differ from unselected lines (USL). Foragers with mites were monitored at the entrances of RHB and USL hives from August to November, 2015, at two apiary sites. At site 1, RHB colonies had fewer FWM than USL and smaller phoretic mite populations. Russian honey bee also had fewer infested brood cells and lower percentages with Varroa offspring than USL. At site 2, FWM did not differ between RHB and USL, and phoretic mite populations were not significantly different. At both sites, there were sharp increases in phoretic mite populations from September to November that corresponded with increasing numbers of FWM. Under conditions where FWM populations are similar between RHB and USL, attributes that contribute to mite resistance in RHB may not keep Varroa population levels below that of USL.

That is pretty much the opposite of your reading.


First, there may be some you have missed. You seem super-eager to 'find' a particular result. maybe you should read a bit more widely.

Second: there is no silver bullet. Your need a continuous process of improvement in each generation. Either you breed that or you let natural selection do it for you. You need to be doing that _in the company of the mites you will find at the place the qeens end up living_. Why? because the mix of techniches and strategies the bred resistant bees will be using will be specitice to those mite. Arms race, remember? Its an ever-shifting picture.


Seee above, last point: and also this was early in the journey to build resistance


Hoskins is a breeder. That's not what I advocate and argue for here.

That won't be helping of course, but it may not be fatal. Can you give an account of why, and how to evaluate it?

Please try to focus on the proposed explanation for the oft-reported phenomena of bees that live wild, and need no treatment in the UK and Ireland, as well as those populations reported to be ongoing, as seen in scientific papers supplied to this very blog.

Again: core explanation:

...the potency of natural selection...

Heath-giving traits (here, the varoa defence mechanisms) are heritable.

The least heathy bees die before reproducing. Zero inheritance, gene pool/next generation not supplied with inadequate genes

The most healthy bees supply the most genes to the gene pool. That is, the heath-giving (heritable) traits. Most healthy genes (traits) supplied in greatest number to the gene pool (next generation).

(in the middle, the more healthy traits, the more genes are passed into the next generation.)

Given natural selection those genes supplying health giving traits are thereby concentrated in the next generation; while those supplying the least healthy traits are eliminated.

Beautiful, no?

This happens in every single free-living organism. If it didn't, the species would become extinct.

Its not a question of belief. Its a question of does Darwinism apply? The scientific answer to that is, absolutely, its in no doubt at all.

That is the proposition: that Darwin applies as the explanation for the phenomona.

Yes, there are many many claims by amateurs that turn out to be ill-founded and possibly false. There are always daft people saying daft things: that's the world we live in. So what. So we focus only on scientific studies AND READ THEM CAREFULLY

What this thread is about is how to maximise your chances of succeeding in being treatment free, in the knowledge that science reports it is sometimes seen.

To do that we need to understand well how natural selection works (and that is easy - I just gave a summary above - but some people may need to study and think about it.); and, how to maximise our chances of giving it a chance.

THAT IS OUR TOPIC. PLEASE FOCUS ON THE TOPIC!

Oh I read the piece 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. Funny enough much like the Arnot bees, if the Arnot trial was to early in their development there must be a recent 1?
Pls show me reputable research for these European AM survivors in a real world trails, that just even has them preform well outside of a closed environment.
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.

 

[Ian123]

What do you think is a realistic timescale? We're told to rotate our chemical, varroa treatments every year in order to avoid the development of resistance in varroa. Adaptation has to be quick or a species will die off.

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.

 

[Wilco]

Thank-you for the reply.

I think we can be reasonably sure that varroa are free of any conscious intent and therefore don't have any target aim or strategy to spread between colonies.

Like all organisms they simply use their gene-controlled, physical, physiological and behavioural attributes to survive long enough to allow them to reproduce as much as their living environment will allow. If anything hinders or stops that process, as we all know, the mix and balance of genes within the population will be disturbed.

The process of adaptation between the varroa and bees can't possibly not be happening, but as @Beesnaturally has explained, things are complicated by other factors, perhaps the most important of these being that the varroa and the bees must also be having an adaptive reaction many other things; perhaps most significantly, to the use of chemicals.

I can understand why, in general, beekeepers aren't at all that keen on leaving this to natural forces. I can also see why some people may think that this will only happen within a geological timescale. But I don't get why so many people can't even accept that the well established concept of Natural Selection is not applicable in the situation this blog describes.

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. If varroa breeds really successfully in one colony, the numbers may increase there and so it appears to be successful but in reality that same success may result in the colony dying prematurely through overwhelming infestation meaning all those varroa die out too. Just like bees need to swarm for the species to have more individual colony units, varroa need to spread between multiple colonies to persist.

 

[Apiarist]

I also uninvited you when it became clear that rational discussion was not possible.

You remain uninvited.

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.

 

[Ian123]

Filipe has found more cavity based nests than the original 50 reported. The characteristics of them are not what was expected from Tom Seeley's work.

Indeed excellent news…..Will there be a press release proclaiming the finding of a new…new…eco type bee do you think and promises of DNA to follow.

 

[JamezF]

If varroa breeds really successfully in one colony, the numbers may increase there and so it appears to be successful but in reality that same success may result in the colony dying prematurely through overwhelming infestation meaning all those varroa die out too.

Reminds me of things that have been said about human viruses, in particular influenza. If it's too damaging to the host then the host dies before passing the virus on, so evolution can favour virus mutations that are less serious because it allows them to spread to others.

James

 

[Apiarist]

The process of adaptation between the varroa and bees can't possibly not be happening, but as @Beesnaturally has explained, things are complicated by other factors, perhaps the most important of these being that the varroa and the bees must also be having an adaptive reaction many other things;...

...I can also see why some people may think that this will only happen within a geological timescale...

Something about your comments created a new way of looking at this issue for me - and also the recent mention of the Russian bees which have only been within varroa's range for approaching 200 years now, and they show no significant tolerance / adaption!

Surely we should be looking at what characteristics other bees have that enable them to be resistant/tolerant. NO not Apis mellifera (honey bees) BUT other species of bees in the Far East, they do have characteristics which enable them to deal with varroa and also even other mites much more dangerous than varroa!

 

[Wilco]

Reminds me of things that have been said about human viruses, in particular influenza. If it's too damaging to the host then the host dies before passing the virus on, so evolution can favour virus mutations that are less serious because it allows them to spread to others.

James

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

Edit: my question being' is that actually occurring in this timescale or is there another explanation?' I personally suspect the latter at the present time.

 

[user 20297]

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 this forum I think that the name "mongrel" is usually intended to carry a negative meaning. But putting that aside, you've got it there. What the owner of this Blog has constantly hammered home and that you are also saying, is that trying to create a "super-breed" of bee is a fruitless exercise. What I think he is saying further to that, and with which I agree, is that in the long term you need a local bee.

The choice, as has been explained and re-explained is just that...we need to have an infinite variety of our own bees.

It's obviously a non-starter for a huge section of beekeepers for whom tradition, the size of their honey-haul, and predictability of their bees' behaviour and possibly even their colouration, is more important than their bees' relationship with varroa. But the denial that it is ever going to be possible to keep bees without varroa treatment and the implication that all people who think that way are misguided or as has previously been said, are "zealots" is in itself misguided.

 

[JamezF]

On this forum I think that the name "mongrel" is usually intended to carry a negative meaning.

Funny how different people read things different ways. I've never understood the word to have that connotation when reading it here. I've always interpreted it to simply mean "of unknown genetic lineage". In my case, because I don't buy in mated queens I consider all my bees to be mongrels. I don't view that as negative. It just means I have no information regarding their genetics.

James

 

[Erichalfbee]

Will there be a press release proclaiming the finding of a new…new…eco type bee

We have already asked this and he has said he is bound by a confidentiality clause

 

[Erichalfbee]

Reminds me of things that have been said about human viruses, in particular influenza. If it's too damaging to the host then the host dies before passing the virus on, so evolution can favour virus mutations that are less serious because it allows them to spread to others.

James

But that's not what happens with varroa. They jump ship as do enough bees to spread to another colony. If brood is parasitised sufficiently that there is little left varroa have nowhere else to go but the foragers.
Isn't it the case that DWV, for example, and the bee exist together happily without the presence of varroa.

 

[user 20297]

Funny how different people read things different ways. I've never understood the word to have that connotation when reading it here. I've always interpreted it to simply mean "of unknown genetic lineage". In my case, because I don't buy in mated queens I consider all my bees to be mongrels. I don't view that as negative. It just means I have no information regarding their genetics.

James

"Mongrel" being defined as you have said seems accurate and positive; it's also how I see it.
But I think that it is a word which can be loaded with negative undertones.