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

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
.
.
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.

photo3.jpg
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the answer is along the lines of how they're tackling malaria... some how make either m or f mite sterile.
No, the answer is to let them find their way. Any 'help' you give undermines the process and leaves them dependent on you.

It's the only route back to a pre-varroa world and it's widely shown to happen.

The only problem is the failure to understand it is possible and/not know or care about the ongoing damage to our ecology.
 
No, the answer is to let them find their way. Any 'help' you give undermines the process and leaves them dependent on you.

It's the only route back to a pre-varroa world and it's widely shown to happen.

The only problem is the failure to understand it is possible and/not know or care about the ongoing damage to our

Eradicating varroa mites from areas where they weren't found before human intervention won't leave bees dependent on us for varroa treatment. Putting a sticking plaster on the problem will.
 
I just wonder what the point of this debate is really. I suspect both sides of the argument are right - non treatment will probably lead to a host-parasite equilibrium establishing itself, and ongoing treatment will push that relationship in favour of the host. The issue being really that pushing the balance of the host-parasite relationship in favour of the host (ie treating) will lead to a healthier bee colony, and hence greater yield (all other things being equal). Neither treating or non-treating will lead to the eradication of varroa, so it is just a case of choosing how to live with it, and your drivers for doing so. The challenge we have is driven by the fact the our bees are not domesticated animals separated from wild/feral populations, unlike most other 'farmed' species, so what happens in the wild will affect our hives, and vice-versa.
 
Eradicating varroa mites from areas where they weren't found before human intervention won't leave bees dependent on us for varroa treatment. Putting a sticking plaster on the problem will.
First, good luck with that.

Second, natural selection isn't a sticking plaster. It's a fix. Places that haven't been able to afford to treat have seen varroa spread like a wave, leaving resistant populations in its wake in which mites are an irrelevance.

That's just nature in action, doing what it has done for 3.7,000,000,000 years, and what honey bees in close to their present form have been doing for 20,000,000 years.

If you have three or four generations of open mated bees right now there is a good chance they'll thrive without medication.
 
First, good luck with that.

Second, natural selection isn't a sticking plaster. It's a fix. Places that haven't been able to afford to treat have seen varroa spread like a wave, leaving resistant populations in its wake in which mites are an irrelevance.

That's just nature in action, doing what it has done for 3.7,000,000,000 years, and what honey bees in close to their present form have been doing for 20,000,000 years.

If you have three or four generations of open mated bees right now there is a good chance they'll thrive without medication.
How is doing nothing going for red squirrels? Or aquatic life where American signal crayfish are wiping out everything in rivers streams and pools?

You can't quote or rely upon evolution when we are talking about human driven eco changes.

Mankind is an external factor in this like an asteroid was to the dinosaurs, or a super volcano eruption filling the air with dust, methane and sulphur. In each of those extinction events sheer luck kept life in one form or another going on the planet not Darwinism.

Now I'm not saying science is going to suddenly find the answer to varorra, but it would be a better solution to find a one off magic pill to quickly remove the issue that wouldn't have raised its head if the internal combustion engine hadn't been invented. I'm also not saying alternative solutions shouldn't be considered either. Moving away from chemicals has got to be the best solution, but we shouldn't play God with a species evolution if we can remove the problem we created in the first place.
 
How is doing nothing going for red squirrels? Or aquatic life where American signal crayfish are wiping out everything in rivers streams and pools?

You can't quote or rely upon evolution when we are talking about human driven eco changes.

Mankind is an external factor in this like an asteroid was to the dinosaurs, or a super volcano eruption filling the air with dust, methane and sulphur. In each of those extinction events sheer luck kept life in one form or another going on the planet not Darwinism.

Now I'm not saying science is going to suddenly find the answer to varorra, but it would be a better solution to find a one off magic pill to quickly remove the issue that wouldn't have raised its head if the internal combustion engine hadn't been invented. I'm also not saying alternative solutions shouldn't be considered either. Moving away from chemicals has got to be the best solution, but we shouldn't play God with a species evolution if we can remove the problem we created in the first place.
'One-off' solutions to predatory life-forms have a long record of becoming 'perpetual solutions' as the predators and predator-groups evolve to overcome the solutions. Look at vaccines....

There are endless examples of invasive species that succeed.

Varroa succeeded in the short term (though killing off most of its host in the process), but the honey bee can, and has fought back - where permitted.

Listing successful invasions doesn't alter that fact.

Evolution continues regardless of whether the new arrivals are from space or by birds, or the hand of mankind. And the honeybee has clearly met a great many life-threatening parasites in its evolutionary history, and is clearly equipped with the tools needed to overcome them.

The evidence for that is, as well as in a great many experienced beekeepr's testimonies, in the scientific literature. Listing successful invasive species doesn't negate or remove it.
 
Last edited:
I just wonder what the point of this debate is really. I suspect both sides of the argument are right - non treatment will probably lead to a host-parasite equilibrium establishing itself, and ongoing treatment will push that relationship in favour of the host. The issue being really that pushing the balance of the host-parasite relationship in favour of the host (ie treating) will lead to a healthier bee colony, and hence greater yield (all other things being equal). Neither treating or non-treating will lead to the eradication of varroa, so it is just a case of choosing how to live with it, and your drivers for doing so. The challenge we have is driven by the fact the our bees are not domesticated animals separated from wild/feral populations, unlike most other 'farmed' species, so what happens in the wild will affect our hives, and vice-versa.

What you have described is the point of the debate (for those who consider it to be a debate worth having).
The interaction between unmanaged bees, entirely free in the environment and "farmed" bees, partially free in the environment, is at the root of the dilemma on both sides of the argument.
People with minority or unpopular views have no choice other than to have great resilience and persistence in the hope that they will gradually change peoples' opinions. On this subject, that probably won't happen any time soon, but if you have a view on aspects of beekeeping, this is a good place to deliver it.
 
What you have described is the point of the debate (for those who consider it to be a debate worth having).
The interaction between unmanaged bees, entirely free in the environment and "farmed" bees, partially free in the environment, is at the root of the dilemma on both sides of the argument.
People with minority or unpopular views have no choice other than to have great resilience and persistence in the hope that they will gradually change peoples' opinions. On this subject, that probably won't happen any time soon, but if you have a view on aspects of beekeeping, this is a good place to deliver it.
I'm not sure I regard this as a debate at all. Its about laying out the evolutionary machinery that explains what is going on (there's no room for debate there) and the consequent facts of the effect of treatment on wild populations - and onward to local ecologies. (Again, no room for debate there.)

Its about supplying the explanation for bees that are living happily in the wild, and in beekeepers hives. And about explaining how anyone might evaluate their situation to estimate their chances of going treatment-free, and how they could push the odds of success in their favour.

Its about opening up this whole area to constructive discussion - something that has been systematically denied on beekeeping forums up till now.

The debate took place when Darwin published the Origin of Species 150 years ago. That was over (for most) within 50 years or so, and has remained over ever since.
 
I'm not sure I regard this as a debate at all. Its about laying out the evolutionary machinery that explains what is going on (there's no room for debate there) and the consequent facts of the effect of treatment on wild populations - and onward to local ecologies. (Again, no room for debate there.)

Its about supplying the explanation for bees that are living happily in the wild, and in beekeepers hives. And about explaining how anyone might evaluate their situation to estimate their chances of going treatment-free, and and how they could push the odds of success in their favour.

Its about opening up this whole area to constructive discussion - something that has been systematically denied on beekeeping forums up till now.

The debate took place when Darwin published the Origin of Species 150 years ago. That was over (for most) within 50 years or so, and has remained over ever since.

Fair enough....it's your blog. :) @RJC thinks it's a debate and we are now debating if it is actually a debate.
I don't think anyone is debating the subject of evolution or adaptation, but people aren't being stupid or obstinate if they can't accept assertions that their bees will eventually be OK if they let Nature take its course.

You have had several contributors who, although they don't wholly accept your assertions and explanations, haven't been insulting or trolling you; I think that it would be constructive to go back to countering any naysaying with practical examples from your approach. Few beekeepers are going to be persuaded of the practicality of beekeeping in this way without seeing it in action. @Steve at Westerham Beeks is an example of someone who is out there making a more natural approach to beekeeping a reality on a wider scale.
 
Last edited:
how can it be a debate when one side keeps shutting out any counter arguments?
Or 'uninviting' them?
If you want to 'debate' scientific literature or empirical fact go ahead. Just do it someplace else please. I neither want such 'debate' here, nor, especially do I want your appalling manners here. Its my blog. There are plenty of places you can debate whatever you choose. Please respect my wishes and leave us alone.
 
I'm not sure I regard this as a debate at all. Its about laying out the evolutionary machinery that explains what is going on (there's no room for debate there) and the consequent facts of the effect of treatment on wild populations - and onward to local ecologies. (Again, no room for debate there.)

Its about supplying the explanation for bees that are living happily in the wild, and in beekeepers hives. And about explaining how anyone might evaluate their situation to estimate their chances of going treatment-free, and how they could push the odds of success in their favour.

Its about opening up this whole area to constructive discussion - something that has been systematically denied on beekeeping forums up till now.

The debate took place when Darwin published the Origin of Species 150 years ago. That was over (for most) within 50 years or so, and has remained over ever since.
I dont think that either Darwin, Wallace or Lamarck's theories were based on 20 to 30 yr evolutionary changes to tackle the unnatural arrival of invasive species. My view is if we can identify quick method(s) to reverse the impact of, or remove the invasive species entirely then we should, but ONLY if the solution doesn't create further ecological issues.

I wish you well with your experiment, If we all did the same thing nothing would change! Hopefully you will be able to come on here and evidence that there is no need to treat our bees for varroa any longer due to the bees developing their own solution. Maybe they will develop a kind of one way symbiotic relationship with the mite.
 
I dont think that either Darwin, Wallace or Lamarck's theories were based on 20 to 30 yr evolutionary changes to tackle the unnatural arrival of invasive species.
No, they were chiefly intended to explain the orgin of species. But its worth noting that Darwin spoke at great length to pigeon breeders during the formation of his views. And that the principles of (lets call it 'bloodline') husbandry were the dominant health strategy, and had been ever since farming first arose - in fact it's probably fair to say that the principle and dictium 'Put best to best' was the key discovery that made farming possible. (Its interesting that there is an account in the Old Testament).

'Put best to best' remains, with some modifications, the key element of bloodline husbandry today. It is not for no reason that top specimens (usually males) change hands for millions of pounds. The sending of weak and sickened livestock to market, and the selection of the strongest (healthiest) for future increase is simply fundamental in all forms of husbandry. That is 'bloodline' husbandry.

My view is if we can identify quick method(s) to reverse the impact of, or remove the invasive species entirely then we should, but ONLY if the solution doesn't create further ecological issues.
As I say, good luck. And why not take the obvious method of limiting the mass reproduction of non-resistant queens, and encouraging normal bloodline husbandry that takes into account the desirability of resistant bees?
I wish you well with your experiment, If we all did the same thing nothing would change!
Au contraire, everything would change. We'd be rid of varroa, just as Puerto Rico and South Africa and the flourishing wild populations all over are. Its only a problem where systematic treating is dominant.
Hopefully you will be able to come on here and evidence that there is no need to treat our bees for varroa any longer due to the bees developing their own solution. Maybe they will develop a kind of one way symbiotic relationship with the mite.
Its done. Your real problem (and you are by no means alone) is you don't know that. Scan this thread for the several scientific papers I've posted and read them (just abstracts and conclusions will give you the general idea). See esp my post 229 Wild/Feral Survivor-Thrivers: Naturally Selected Resistant Bees.
 
Last edited:
If you want to 'debate' scientific literature or empirical fact go ahead. Just do it someplace else please. I neither want such 'debate' here, nor, especially do I want your appalling manners here. Its my blog. There are plenty of places you can debate whatever you choose. Please respect my wishes and leave us alone.
QED
How rude!
I didn't realise just how much real facts (not fantasies) offended you
 
I just wonder what the point of this debate is really. I suspect both sides of the argument are right - non treatment will probably lead to a host-parasite equilibrium establishing itself, and ongoing treatment will push that relationship in favour of the host. The issue being really that pushing the balance of the host-parasite relationship in favour of the host (ie treating) will lead to a healthier bee colony, and hence greater yield (all other things being equal). Neither treating or non-treating will lead to the eradication of varroa, so it is just a case of choosing how to live with it, and your drivers for doing so. The challenge we have is driven by the fact the our bees are not domesticated animals separated from wild/feral populations, unlike most other 'farmed' species, so what happens in the wild will affect our hives, and vice-versa.
Unless a Varroa analogue of this comes along:
https://www.cdc.gov/mosquitoes/mosquito-control/community/emerging-methods/index.html
 
I dont think that either Darwin, Wallace or Lamarck's theories were based on 20 to 30 yr evolutionary changes to tackle the unnatural arrival of invasive species. My view is if we can identify quick method(s) to reverse the impact of, or remove the invasive species entirely then we should, but ONLY if the solution doesn't create further ecological issues.

I wish you well with your experiment, If we all did the same thing nothing would change! Hopefully you will be able to come on here and evidence that there is no need to treat our bees for varroa any longer due to the bees developing their own solution. Maybe they will develop a kind of one way symbiotic relationship with the mite.
The suggestion here is that it can be fairly fast....

https://phys.org/news/2022-09-chernobyl-black-frogs-reveal-evolution.html
 

The evidence (as attested in a number of studies posted on this thread) is that in the case of the honey bee, under good conditions, that it is indeed pretty rapid. And so is subsequent population rebuild.

It does seem to be a fairly recent observation. More non-honeybee examples:

"When we think about natural selection, we think about it happening over hundreds, or thousands, of years," said Samuel Wasser, a conservation biologist at the University of Washington, who was not involved in the research. "The fact that this dramatic selection for tusklessness happened over 15 years is one of the most astonishing findings."
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/22/1048...ivory poaching,that will never develop tusks.------------------------------------
Abstract
In recent years, biologists have increasingly recognized that evolutionary change can occur rapidly when natural selection is strong; thus, real-time studies of evolution can be used to test classic evolutionary hypotheses directly. One such hypothesis is that negative interactions between closely related species can drive phenotypic divergence. Such divergence is thought to be ubiquitous, though well-documented cases are surprisingly rare. On small islands in Florida, we found that the lizard Anolis carolinensis moved to higher perches following invasion by Anolis sagrei and, in response, adaptively evolved larger toepads after only 20 generations. These results illustrate that interspecific interactions between closely related species can drive evolutionary change on observable time scales.
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1257008
---------------------------------
"Environmental change can drive hard-wired evolutionary changes in animal species in a matter of generations.

A University of Leeds-led study, published in the journal Ecology Letters, overturns the common assumption that evolution only occurs gradually over hundreds or thousands of years.

Instead, researchers found significant genetically transmitted changes in laboratory populations of soil mites in just 15 generations, leading to a doubling of the age at which the mites reached adulthood and large changes in population size. The results have important implications in areas such as disease and pest control, conservation and fisheries management because they demonstrate that evolution can be a game-changer even in the short-term.

Professor Tim Benton, of the University of Leeds’ Faculty of Biological Sciences, said: “This demonstrates that short-term ecological change and evolution are completely intertwined and cannot reasonably be considered separate. We found that populations evolve rapidly in response to environmental change and population management. This can have major consequences such as reducing harvesting yields or saving a population heading for extinction.”
https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3387/environmental_change_triggers_rapid_evolution
----------------------------------
Think evolution is a slow, gradual process? Tell that to fruit flies. In a new report published in Science, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania used a controlled field experiment to show that flies rapidly adapted to shifting environmental conditions with alterations throughout their genome and in a suite of physical characteristics.

Over the course of the experiment, which lasted four months, the researchers documented changes to 60% of the flies’ genome. With this direct observation of swift and continuous adaptation in response to the environment—a phenomenon known as adaptive tracking—the biologists have established a new paradigm for how to think about the time scale of evolution.

“It was an interesting idea but thought unlikely, until we showed it,” says Paul Schmidt, a biology professor in Penn’s School of Arts & Sciences and senior author on the paper.

“What makes this so exciting is the temporal resolution with which we’re seeing evolutionary processes in real time,” says Seth Rudman, a co-lead author on the publication who performed the work as a postdoctoral fellow at Penn and is now an assistant professor at Washington State University.

https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/ra... of,response to natural environmental change.
 
Last edited:
From its wording, this blog opened with assumptions that are not meant to be contested. Many people who have joined the conversation appear to have doubts about the basic premise, so they are at the wrong party. ;) But it shows that it's obviously not going to be easy to achieve that sought-after Nirvana where we would all work together to achieve this natural solution to the problem.

@Beesnaturally and others have supplied the evidence that positively answers my question 1 below. But for me and for other "fanboys" I feel that question 2 below is very challenging. Largely because of that challenge, question 3 seems to be the most constructive focus that should be made if you want to actually "change the world" rather than winding up the UK beekeeping community.

1. Do people actually believe that in multiple locations, Apis mellifera have actually adapted to become able to exist alongside Varroa destructor without human help? If not, given that there is evidence, can they ever be convinced?

2. If they do believe the above to be true, would they be prepared to accept the initial losses, changes to colony size, colony management and honey yield that may come with making the choice to trust Nature to sort things out?

3. How do those beekeepers who are prepared to follow the above route persuade other beekeepers who are local to them to to have sufficient confidence and enthusiasm to join them?

To that end, for those who are interested, here is a link to a pragmatic webpage from Westerham Beekeepers, which includes further links to their methods.

https://westerham.kbka.org.uk/natural-beekeeping/
 
Beebe, I think I would want to add to that something that I've raised repeatedly, but have found little interest. That is: how can we evaluate our chances of success?

The reason is: there are what we might break in to classes: high probability, medium probablity, all but impossible.

And then, should we find we belong in the first two (and we want to try) the Westerham Beekeeper's methods are perhaps one of several - perhaps many - approaches we might take. (And we can probably mix them up a little too.)

I would love to hear Steve's accounts of his methods and progress here. Any chance Steve?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top