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]

I'm going to ask moderators here to recognise that persistent insistence of a lack of explanation for the precise mechanisms, and persistent insistence on focusing on the (false assertion of) failure of any mechanisms to explain, or justify, the claim of wild and thriving honeybees is not only off-topic, but preventing on-topic discussion.

The existence of surviving wild/feral populations has been shown to be scientific fact. How that has come to be is explained entirely by orthodox understanding of co-evolution.

Now: what precisely the mechanisms within each colony are is not the topic of this thread. Certainly it is interesting. But any lack of full understanding (and there will likely always be some such lack) has no impact whatsoever on the established fact of surviving and thriving wild populations.

I ask the moderators to discourage Apiarist and others from pursing this line on my blog. The topic has been clearly stated. The bee forums are, historically, riddled with examples of repression of this topic - Apiraist is continuing a well-worn path with a well-honed strategy.
I'd like to be able to discuss the role of natural selection in free-living honeybees, and in no-treatment apiaries, without this obstruction, and I appeal to the moderators for their help in doing so.

 

[Erichalfbee]

Send him a polite PM asking that he contribute no more

 

[Beesnaturally]

In the hope of getting the thread back on track....

I mentioned in an earlier thread the Red Queen Hypothesis. This can get horribly complicated if you read the close examinations, but its essence is simple:
Populations must keep adapting or die. (The same is true of entire species)

The name comes from the character in Alice in wonderland, who has to keep running just to stand still. It conjoures up for me the picture of running up a down escalator - again you have to keep running just to stand still. Another analogy would be the sharks that must keep swimming in order not to fall into the icy depths and perish.

We can note: this is not an option: it is an outright necessity. Populations _must_ keep adapting.

The reason is this: their competitors and predators are adapting constantly. For the first group, to win the competion to take the common resources. In the second group, to take ever-more energy (food) from the prey.

In our case, we have a predator-prey relationship in the shape of a host-parasite relation. The bee is the prey/'host'), which must keep adapting to match adaptations, and innovations, in its predator. The mites must in turn keep adapting to maintain the levels of evergy they require.

This is the 'arms race'. Each side has to keep getting better at attack and/or defence in order just to stay in the same place.

The linked paper outlines the bones of the understanding, showing how key terms like 'Red Queen Hypothesis, 'co-evolution' and 'arms race' are different aspects of a key understanding in evolutionary science.

This understanding explains why it is paramount that domesticated species are continually selected - that is each new generation made from only the best of the last. And it explains why bees cannot survive unless they are either medicated in the face of varroa, or allowed the freedom to adapt through natural selection.

Selection, selection, selection... is how health (adaptation) is gained and maintained.

Key extract:
Arms race is a specific form of coevolution that is characterized by escalating levels of defense and counterdefense in antagonistic interactions. However, arms-race coevolution does not necessarily imply an endless increase in defense and counterdefense phenotypes. For example, the geographic structure of the interaction may prevent the relentless escalation through the acquisition of new defense mechanisms that may replace the original one in some populations (e.g., Benkman 1999; Benkman et al. 2003). Gene flow across localities may arm host species with a battery of possibilities including the original defense, the new defense, or a combination of both, probably depending on the level of overlapping between host and parasite populations (Nuismer et al. 2003) Similarly, gene flow between hotspots and coldspots will slow the rate of escalation in the global system of interconnected populations.

The arms race model for host–parasite interactions makes several specific predictions (Thompson 1994, 2005):

1) Local populations of the parasite are adapted to the least defended of their potential local host assemblage.

2) Parasite hierarchies of infection vary geographically, indicating host alternation across localities.

3) Some uninfected hosts exhibit high levels of defense, providing correlative evidence for past adaptive or anachronic traits to the interaction that have not yet been lost.

4) Some host populations may show low levels of defense, indicating that (1) the species is new to the antagonistic interaction or (2) the species is a host that lost its defense as the parasite focused on an alternative host species.

5) Host populations may show variable defense levels across localities, indicating different levels of defense ratcheting in different community contexts.

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0191-7

 

[Wilco]

.
.
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.

View attachment 34042

Above is from the first post on this blog. Pasted below with certain aspects highlighted:

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]

Above is from the first post on this blog. Pasted below with certain aspects highlighted:



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.

Fair point, and if I wrote it again I'd be more specific. But what we have learned is that persistent posts about the mechanisms of resistance can be used to block discussion of the evolutionary context, adaptation through natural selection.

Some 'machines' are extensive, with a great many sub-mechanisms within. We can chose where to place our focus.

Mine is in my title. It's the population-level development of resistance by natural selection. And my last post clarifies and focuses the topic-area.

This material is not merely supportive of the plain and evidenced fact of adapted populations. It supplies the grounding over which all subsequent phenomena can be contextualised. Without it everybody is shooting in the dark.

 

[Ian123]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5385554/These researchers are confident they’ve explained the reasons for a surviving population. We’ve got plenty of examples of supposedly tolerant bees not performing well when compared in open trials or indeed reasons other than bees tolerance for their survival…Do we have any independent research showing these claimed survivors out preforming average bees.?
It’s a pity B+ is no longer around as he could share the well documented and verifiable work done by large scale breeders working on VSH. Given the work being done I’m surprised none have rushed to these remote areas of survivors to top up the breeding programs. Given the large amounts of VSH queens now being advertised, many imports. I wonder how long before or if this will have any effect on an open population.

 

[Beesnaturally]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5385554/These researchers are confident they’ve explained the reasons for a surviving population. We’ve got plenty of examples of supposedly tolerant bees not performing well when compared in open trials or indeed reasons other than bees tolerance for their survival…Do we have any independent research showing these claimed survivors out preforming average bees.?
It’s a pity B+ is no longer around as he could share the well documented and verifiable work done by large scale breeders working on VSH. Given the work being done I’m surprised none have rushed to these remote areas of survivors to top up the breeding programs. Given the large amounts of VSH queens now being advertised, many imports. I wonder how long before or if this will have any effect on an open population.

Pretty much every paper I've read concerning resistance breeding suggests picking up genes from wild/feral populations. I've never seen any suggestions one ought to rush.

VHS queens will have some effect, mostly depending on the proportions imported. The main benefit will be to displace imports of all but completely unresistant queens. It is they that cause most damage to wild/feral bee populations.

It's my understanding that recent research shows uncapping/recapping to be one of, if not the main mechanism currently employed by UK and Irish untreated populations.

It is widely reported among successful non treating beekeepers (who by extension almost certainly have wild bees around them) that DWV is no longer a problem.

 

[Apiarist]

80% is my ball park figure if I do an accelerated drop

Yes, I've heard mentioned (I think it was Seeley at the last UBKA Conference?) 85% of total varroa in the hive is left behind when the swarm leaves; so it would stand to reason that swarming could extend the lifespan of a queens' colony - as it moves with the queen from tree to tree (in the wild).

Therefore I think it might be safe to say that swarmyness may be an advantage to the bee (but not the beek!), but within moderation.

I seem to recall a study in which this was applied to beekeeping, was it a German researcher? in that shook swarms done properly could be as effective as a treatment and could keep the mites numbers down to manageable levels: Now thinking about it again, I should hunt that paper / article down and reconsider my opinion about it?

 

[Apiarist]

Given the large amounts of VSH queens now being advertised, many imports. I wonder how long before or if this will have any effect on an open population.

That was the subject of an attempted study here in Ireland some years ago, I communicated with the author, he like me, was of the opinion, that the breeding efforts of VSH breeders (like B+) would result in more and more resistant bees (meaning they don't need treated - at all) coming onto market, and that these imported carnicas (now this would include also Buckfasts) would interbreed with the local bees (meaning Amm's). Based on the figures I've had emailed me, I'd guess at the rate of progress the (mainly) German carnica beekeepers will have functionally varroa resistant bees around 2035 (13 years) - that's going to be a game changer! Hence the reason why the attempted Irish study to try and identify and then breed resistant bees ourselves...

PS: I have since changed my opinion that these (more) resistant imported carnica bees would interbreed with the local bees, but that's off topic.

 

[Beesnaturally]

That was the subject of an attempted study here in Ireland some years ago, I communicated with the author, he like me, was of the opinion, that the breeding efforts of VSH breeders (like B+) would result in more and more resistant bees (meaning they don't need treated - at all) coming onto market, and that these imported carnicas (now this would include also Buckfasts) would interbreed with the local bees (meaning Amm's). Based on the figures I've had emailed me, I'd guess at the rate of progress the (mainly) German carnica beekeepers will have functionally varroa resistant bees around 2035 (13 years) - that's going to be a game changer! Hence the reason why the attempted Irish study to try and identify and then breed resistant bees ourselves...

PS: I have since changed my opinion that these (more) resistant imported carnica bees would interbreed with the local bees, but that's off topic.

The game changer on offer is a shift to an unhindered wild population. That is, locally adapted populations, constantly refining their own make-up through natural selection. This has already happened, if only by accident and neglect, in many places already.

Such bees are unlikely in my view ever to thrive in highly concentrated 'workhorse' operations. And prophylactic treatments will always raise productivity by some margin.

The key factor will always be the degree of selection going on in any locality. If natural selection can be let off the leash, bees will locate optimum all-round fitness. If beekeepers can select skillfully they can work within that environment, tweaking the local stock toward their own desiderata without, hopefully, making life harder for their wild (literal) cousins.

The importation of VHS bees is, I think, a poor second-best strategy. In areas where there are no wild populations, yes it may help kick-start them, but it will be an unbalanced and genetically thin bee by comparison with an established local feral stock. I doubt there are many parts of the UK today that don't have fairly well advanced resistant wild bees. And the key issue remains: how many non-resistant and/or poorly resistant bees are being introduced and being replicated?

If they need to be treated, they are hindering the efforts of local bees (and treatment-free beekeepers).

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem

The Amm question is interesting. If all beekeeping were to stop today, would natural selection in the Northern European environment drive toward Amm? My own bees do seem to be steadily darkening, and that leads me to think the answer is yes, and quite quickly.

If that is the case I think they will probably head toward Amm without out ever quite getting there. After a period of ever-slower change, a proportion of foreign genes will stick. It's like waiting for the last bees to return to a captured swarm:as time goes by you experience diminishing returns.

Purity of race is a thorny topic. The closer you look the more you realise it's just a matter of degree, except in small isolated island settings. Or closed breeding settings.

 

[Wilco]

On the topic of 'purity' of race and 'foreign' genes (I'm uncomfortable with these terms TBH), it may be worth consideration of speciation. The arisal of new genes from scratch is a truly rare thing all the info I've seen hypothesises it must occur but I only know of examples where existing genes mutate or are copied such as seen with viruses, plasmids with bacteria and not much in higher organisms at all). Usually what is seen is when species speciates is that populations lose genetic material that was present in their ancestors or, through epigenetic changes, certain genes are switched off (and can be switched on again despite lying dormant).

@Beesnaturally on the one hand you seem to be saying that imported bees are 'genetically thin' whereas local bees are fitter through having the genes to adapt but surely if arguing that they are an island population, AMM may have lost some variation over time thus could be considered 'genetically thin' themselves. Imported bees could also bring in genes which might have been lost in an isolated population so can you concede that there is a chance (if they interbreed) that bringing in 'new' genetics theoretically could have a positive effect on fitness in terms of increasing genetic material available for variation?

 

[Beesnaturally]

@Beesnaturally on the one hand you seem to be saying that imported bees are 'genetically thin' whereas local bees are fitter through having the genes to adapt but surely if arguing that they are an island population, AMM may have lost some variation over time thus could be considered 'genetically thin' themselves.

An isolated population becomes more genetically uniform over time. The smaller the island the more pronounced and quickly this will happen.

(Notwithstanding this it will be composed of individuals - every bee will still be a unique combination from the gene pool, of around 300 million DNA base pairs)

My illustrative proposition was that, should all beekeeping stop tomorrow, our bees might well level out, as it were, as close to the native Amm. The population/s would tend to lose those genes that didn't function as well as Amm genes in the Northern environment.

Imported genes would, over time become thinner on the ground, as it were.

The same thing would happen everywhere that (hypothetical) situation arose. The long-term local species and races would return by natural selection. On the whole.

I offered my own, darkening, locally adapted bees as tentative evidence.

Imported bees could also bring in genes which might have been lost in an isolated population so can you concede that there is a chance (if they interbreed) that bringing in 'new' genetics theoretically could have a positive effect on fitness in terms of increasing genetic material available for variation?

Yes of course. And any such genes would remain in such a scenario.

It's my understanding however that bees everywhere possess the genes required to address blood parasites. Where such parasites have not been present for a long while, those genes have 'retreated'; that is become rarely held and rarely expressed in any population (because they have a cost in energy terms).

Any population can however be induced to raise them to operating levels through selection against the adaptive pressure they supply.

My reluctance to endorse VHS gene imports is mostly based on my understanding that it is unnecessary; our wild/ferals are already in battle mode, those genes are already present and working in partnership with other defence systems on a 'what works, works' basis. Importing VHS bees also carries the risk of upsetting what may be a incredibly delicate balance of mechanisms already functioning.

And beside that they would continue to inject the entire mixed package of foreign genes in populations that probably do best in the long run with an emergent Amm genetic foundation.

I'm probably being overcautious. As I've said it might kick-start local wild populations in places that till now have been too hostile to support them. On balance I'd rather see (preferably accredited) VHS than totally unresistant imports/replications.

 

[Beesnaturally]

I just bumped into an earlier thread by Beebe highlighting a paper that offers much to this thread:

Host-Parasite Co-Evolution in Real-Time: Changes in Honey Bee Resistance Mechanisms and Mite Reproductive Strategies​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7911685/
Thanks Beebe!

Extracts:

"we show that mites can change their reproduction when associated with surviving hosts and that the bee behaviors suppressing mite reproduction can vary over time. "

"it is known that Western honey bee (Apis mellifera) populations can cope with host-shifted ectoparasitic mites (Varroa destructor) by means of natural selection. "

" 1. Introduction
Coevolution is a dynamic process driving the interactions between parasites and hosts [1,2,3]. Such dynamics can vary across generations depending on specific selection scenarios [3]. As parasites are considered among the organisms with the highest evolutionary potential, hosts will have to swiftly evolve efficient adaptive strategies in order to survive [4]. The remarkable adaptability of parasites includes the propensity to switch to new hosts, for which the lack of coevolution can have disastrous consequences [5]. A representative example of this is Varroa destructor, an ectoparasitic mite, which is currently considered as the most devastating threat to the survival of its novel host, the Western honey bee, Apis mellifera [6]. V. destructor causes little harm to its original host, the Eastern honey bee, Apis cerana, since this species shares a long co-evolutionary history that led to the development of defense mechanisms [7,8,9,10]. However, when V. destructor switched to A. mellifera around the middle of the last century, its initial high virulence was not counteracted by co-evolved host defenses, which led to the quasi-eradication of wild and feral honey bee populations in the Northern hemisphere [11,12,13] and to high losses of managed colonies [14].

On the other hand, the evolution of resistance to mite infestations by means of natural selection has been demonstrated in several populations of Western honey bees, in which no chemical treatments against the mites were implemented (reviewed by [15]). All A. mellifera populations in sub-Saharan Africa as well as Africanized populations in the Americas survive without treatments, while those of European origin are in general susceptible [10,15]. Nevertheless, surviving European A. mellifera populations and populations of European-derived A. mellifera in North-America have been reported [15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. In these colonies, natural selection fostered the evolution of traits that enabled them to cope with the parasite. Some of these adaptations are specific behaviors of workers, which are targeting mite-infested brood cells, thereby reducing parasite reproductive success [21]. For example, in four European surviving A. mellifera populations, workers have evolved the capacity to detect brood cells containing reproductive mites and, by opening and closing the cell cap (i.e., cell recapping), may interfere with the reproduction of the parasite ([22], but see [23,24]). Resistant populations can also remove the entire content of brood cells infested with reproductive mites (i.e., varroa sensitive hygiene (VSH) [25] as in the case of the Amsterdam Water Dunes selection, AWD, studied by Panziera et al. [20]). These results demonstrate the remarkable capacity of Western honey bees to rapidly adapt to a novel parasite. However, the possibility that the parasite may also adapt as a response to the selective pressure imposed by these resistant hosts has so far received little attention [26]."

Contrary to the notions of some, surviving and thriving naturally-selected honeybee populations are not wishful thinking. They are well-attested in the scientific literature, and the most fundamental scientific understanding of how this has happened is supplied by nothing more or less than 150 years of solid Darwinism. Natural selection for the fittest strains form the foundation: the 'arms race' and co-evolution supply a secend level.

That such bees are alive and flourishing in the UK is beyond doubt.

An understanding of the fact that there are just two obstacles to their returning fully to their pre-varroa state is revealed by a basic understanding of the simple mechanism of natural selection.

Treatments and mass-reproduced treatment-dependent queens are those obstacles.

If you want to become a real beekeeper, undertake husbandry of a population, start here.

 

[BaconWizard]

I just bumped into an earlier thread by Beebe highlighting a paper that offers much to this thread:

Host-Parasite Co-Evolution in Real-Time: Changes in Honey Bee Resistance Mechanisms and Mite Reproductive Strategies​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7911685/
Thanks Beebe!

Extracts:

"we show that mites can change their reproduction when associated with surviving hosts and that the bee behaviors suppressing mite reproduction can vary over time. "

"it is known that Western honey bee (Apis mellifera) populations can cope with host-shifted ectoparasitic mites (Varroa destructor) by means of natural selection. "

" 1. Introduction
Coevolution is a dynamic process driving the interactions between parasites and hosts [1,2,3]. Such dynamics can vary across generations depending on specific selection scenarios [3]. As parasites are considered among the organisms with the highest evolutionary potential, hosts will have to swiftly evolve efficient adaptive strategies in order to survive [4]. The remarkable adaptability of parasites includes the propensity to switch to new hosts, for which the lack of coevolution can have disastrous consequences [5]. A representative example of this is Varroa destructor, an ectoparasitic mite, which is currently considered as the most devastating threat to the survival of its novel host, the Western honey bee, Apis mellifera [6]. V. destructor causes little harm to its original host, the Eastern honey bee, Apis cerana, since this species shares a long co-evolutionary history that led to the development of defense mechanisms [7,8,9,10]. However, when V. destructor switched to A. mellifera around the middle of the last century, its initial high virulence was not counteracted by co-evolved host defenses, which led to the quasi-eradication of wild and feral honey bee populations in the Northern hemisphere [11,12,13] and to high losses of managed colonies [14].

On the other hand, the evolution of resistance to mite infestations by means of natural selection has been demonstrated in several populations of Western honey bees, in which no chemical treatments against the mites were implemented (reviewed by [15]). All A. mellifera populations in sub-Saharan Africa as well as Africanized populations in the Americas survive without treatments, while those of European origin are in general susceptible [10,15]. Nevertheless, surviving European A. mellifera populations and populations of European-derived A. mellifera in North-America have been reported [15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. In these colonies, natural selection fostered the evolution of traits that enabled them to cope with the parasite. Some of these adaptations are specific behaviors of workers, which are targeting mite-infested brood cells, thereby reducing parasite reproductive success [21]. For example, in four European surviving A. mellifera populations, workers have evolved the capacity to detect brood cells containing reproductive mites and, by opening and closing the cell cap (i.e., cell recapping), may interfere with the reproduction of the parasite ([22], but see [23,24]). Resistant populations can also remove the entire content of brood cells infested with reproductive mites (i.e., varroa sensitive hygiene (VSH) [25] as in the case of the Amsterdam Water Dunes selection, AWD, studied by Panziera et al. [20]). These results demonstrate the remarkable capacity of Western honey bees to rapidly adapt to a novel parasite. However, the possibility that the parasite may also adapt as a response to the selective pressure imposed by these resistant hosts has so far received little attention [26]."

Contrary to the notions of some, surviving and thriving naturally-selected honeybee populations are not wishful thinking. They are well-attested in the scientific literature, and the most fundamental scientific understanding of how this has happened is supplied by nothing more or less than 150 years of solid Darwinism. Natural selection for the fittest strains form the foundation: the 'arms race' and co-evolution supply a secend level.

That such bees are alive and flourishing in the UK is beyond doubt.

An understanding of the fact that there are just two obstacles to their returning fully to their pre-varroa state is revealed by a basic understanding of the simple mechanism of natural selection.

Treatments and mass-reproduced treatment-dependent queens are those obstacles.

If you want to become a real beekeeper, undertake husbandry of a population, start here.

Sure. Nobody (I don’t think, certainly not most people) are saying it CAN’T be true, and to the good.

What is being said is that simply making a claim about any particular colony isn’t enough. A nice story that seems to fit the facts is only that: a story. And the fact that such colonies CAN exist is not proof that any particular colony is one of them.
That’s not how evidence works.

Empirical data is required. Every time.
If such data is gathered, properly, then it is convincing. That is what distinguishes science from superstition, folk-tale and the occasional happy accident.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Sure. Nobody (I don’t think, certainly not most people) are saying it CAN’T be true, and to the good.

What is being said is that simply making a claim about any particular colony isn’t enough. A nice story that seems to fit the facts is only that: a story. And the fact that such colonies CAN exist is not proof that any particular colony is one of them.
That’s not how evidence works.

Empirical data is required. Every time.
If such data is gathered, properly, then it is convincing. That is what distinguishes science from superstition, folk-tale and the occasional happy accident.

There comes a point when the body of knowledge predicts outcomes well enough make confident statements about what has, and what will happen. Evolutionary biology confidently states that populations respond to pressures in their environment (and the relief of pressures too) and through natural selection become optimised in fitness terms.

There is now wide and widening evidence of thriving wild/feral bees - that must, we can confidently assume, be managing their mite loads well. And we know about a range of defence mechanisms.

We can confidently marry the three: evolutionary theory, knowledge of existence of mechanisms, the survivor/thriver populations.

Agreed?

However: from there: yes, we have to discover if, and to what degree, any particular colony (wild or housed) has such resistance, to be able to make any prediction as to how well it, and its progeny, might perform in future.

I think its useful put that the following way: is this colony a representative member of a resistant local population, or simply an escapee that will soon die: or something inbetween?

Would you agree with that?

As to the need for science at that stage: not really. There is a rough and ready test: try it. Give it fair circumstance and see what happens. Build a picture of the locality it came from. You never really know if an offspring will be healthy. You have look at its parents, feel it all over, then suck it and see.

 

[pargyle]

Sure. Nobody (I don’t think, certainly not most people) are saying it CAN’T be true, and to the good.

What is being said is that simply making a claim about any particular colony isn’t enough. A nice story that seems to fit the facts is only that: a story. And the fact that such colonies CAN exist is not proof that any particular colony is one of them.
That’s not how evidence works.

Empirical data is required. Every time.
If such data is gathered, properly, then it is convincing. That is what distinguishes science from superstition, folk-tale and the occasional happy accident.

There will always be those who demand scientific, measured and proven evidence for observed behaviour. I don't, personally, consider everything that I see (or indeed observed by others) as requiring empirical evidence.

If you look back to the origins of the benefits of insulation on hives (in both summer and winter) you can trace it back to William Broughton Carr and his WBC hives in the 19th Century - developed purely on observation. Bill Bielby - in the 1960's and 70's ...observation only - showed the benefits of having draught proof and insulated hives. Yet it is only in the last few years that Derek Mitchell has, scientifically, proved that insulation has a marked effect on the ability of colonies to thrive and survive.

The fact that some things in beekeeping can only, at the present time, be largely evidenced by individual beekeepers observations does not make them any less relevant. It sometimes takes time for the science to catch up with observed behaviour - it does not always mean that what is observed is superstition, folk-tale or happy accident.

I don't and never have treated my bees for varroa. They survive and thrive .. I don't know why they don't die out .. I've taken in two colonies from another beekeeper that were giving the previous beekeeper enormous problems with varroa .. after initial treatment they have been managed exactly as I manage my other colonies. They remain very low in mite numbers, no signs of the DWV that was previously evident and they are thriving.

Is this proof of anything ? Not at all ..is it my management, my location, my hives or a combination of a multiplicity of factors ? Who knows ? Is it replicable elsewhere ? There are clearly a growing number of beekeepers who are not treating their bees for varroa - is this leading to some bees finding ways to combat varroa in their midst ? I don't know. Bees are amongst the most opportunist and advanced insects on the planet with millions of years of evolutionary change .. could they adapt in the relatively tiny timescale since we have had varroa in the UK ? Possibly, I don't know.

I've avoided contributing to this blog as the discussion can never end with any scientifically supportable outcome. My view .. if you try it and it works for you .. all well and good - but if you are waiting for someone to show you the silver bullet supported with scientifically proven evidence you may have a long wait.

 

[JamezF]

If you look back to the origins of the benefits of insulation on hives (in both summer and winter) you can trace it back to William Broughton Carr and his WBC hives in the 19th Century - developed purely on observation. Bill Bielby - in the 1960's and 70's ...observation only - showed the benefits of having draught proof and insulated hives. Yet it is only in the last few years that Derek Mitchell has, scientifically, proved that insulation has a marked effect on the ability of colonies to thrive and survive.

That doesn't mean that WBC's understanding wasn't based on empirical evidence though. I've no idea how he went about his work, but it's quite possible to do valid science based on observation. That's what experiments are, after all. What makes it "science" is how one goes about carrying out those observations. "We've tried this a few times and it seems to work for us" almost certainly won't wash. "We've tried this repeatedly in various conditions with controls in place, fully recorded results and attempted to eliminate other possible explanations for the same observations as well as potential sources of error" probably gets you a few steps down the right path. It's some way short of the standard we'd look for today, but we now understand a lot more about (for example) how humans interfere with the execution and interpretation of their own experiments.

James

 

[Beesnaturally]

More meditations on successful less-than-modern-science achievements:

At some point about 10,000 years ago it was noticed that being choosy about which seeds you plant got you a better result than just throwing any in. Similarly, controlling the parentage of animals. I've no idea how long it was before it was noticed that doing this, generation after generation could bring material changes about, taking the wolfishness out and bringing docility and trainablity to dogs and the like, but things really took off for humans at this time; hunter-gathering giving way to farming, bringing riches that could be used, among other things, to effectively defend a territory.

Another fine example is the great religious buildings. To stand within, or outside, one of the great 1000 year-old cathedrals, and realise this achievement was made with little more than millenia of trial and error brings home: we are not lost without the ability to perform modern scientific investigations ourselves.

We can do plenty with very simple tools. I think Marla Spivak characterises bee (genetic) husbandry well when she describes it as neither a science or an art, but something with elements of both.

Bringing this back to BaconWizard's pertinent point: I think as I've said, to build up a picture of the nature of the local population is a good first start. Talking to local beekeepers (seeking out local non-treating beekeepers especially) can give you a good idea of the nature of your local breeding pool. The colour and size of bees seems to me to be emerging as a tell-tale sign of independence, health self sufficiency, perhaps lack of intruding genes.

 

[Lislarybees]

https://www.earth.com/news/vegetation-helps-wild-honeybees-survive-the-winter/
Interesting article based on a scientific study from this year. Wild living Apis Mellifera Iberiensis colonies were found to be living and according to some reporting of the study ‘thriving’ in hollowed out electrical poles.

Similar results to Irish study in many ways. They draw particular attention to:

“Both the initial occurrence and the subsequent winter survival of the colonies were positively correlated with increasing proportions of wood- and shrubland in the surroundings in both study years. These observations highlight the importance of semi-natural habitats for the conservation of wild-living honeybees.”

It seems to me that if honeybees native to a particular area are given suitable colony sites, greater biodiversity in the ecosystem around them which in turn will offer higher quality forage then they are quite able to live with varroa and indeed thrive.

 

[Beesnaturally]

It seems to me that if honeybees native to a particular area are given suitable colony sites, greater biodiversity in the ecosystem around them which in turn will offer higher quality forage then they are quite able to live with varroa and indeed thrive.

Just have good forage isn't sufficient alone. They also need adequate defences against varroa.
I'm not over-impressed with the survival rates given, but it's a start, and, if they remain free of treated bees will almost certainly rise.

But yes, a minimum variation of forage is helpful to the point of being a necessity.