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]

We seem to have largely winnowed the intemperate to just a few people, with one outstanding contributor.

 

[Wilco]

I would say that (both parts) was implicit. Perhaps I should say 'free-living thriving' bees. They couldn't be described that way unless they were resistant.

Does that work for you?

The pedant in me is somewhat happier.

I'll be good and ignore the rubbish that science and faith are somehow inherently opposed or mutually exclusive.

 

[Wilco]

I agree but there are places where that seems impossible such is the temperature of peoples’ opinions.

Inherent risk due to this not being face to face but I'd argue (knowing I've occasionally failed on this) that it's down to each member to ensure they act in good faith and are consistent in the standards they apply to both their own and opposing views. Open disagreement is better than censorship IMO.
What is the solution? Alcohol? Probably part of the solution is the next season starting and us having bees to play with.

 

[user 20297]

So (and setting aside an questions of deities that have plans...):

A1) Some people don't want to be concerned with the impact of non-resistant bees on free living bees, and
A2) Some do.

B1) Some people think non-resistant bees don't have any impact on free living bees, and
B2) Some do.

C1) Some people think there are no free-living bees, and
C3 Some think there are.

May I suggest that this blog is for the benefit of those in all groups A2, B2, and C2? Conversation here is predicated, as indicated in the OP, on acceptance of those beliefs?

We may note that we have now collected perhaps 10 scientific papers that are in full accordance with beliefs B2 and C2 and zero scientific papers that question them. (Belief A being a purely personal moral stance, though it may be supported by possession of beliefs B1 and C1)

I'm sure that's more complicated than it needs to be, but I thought it worth at least trying to set out our various options as I see them...

Cheerfully disregarding the fact that you rightly set the matter aside, it's ironic that some people find it easier to believe that there are deities that have plans rather than to have faith that there are "free living bees" that have the ability to thrive without human intervention.

 

[Wilco]

Cheerfully disregarding the fact that you rightly set the matter aside, it's ironic that some people find it easier to believe that there are deities that have plans rather than to have faith that there are "free living bees" that have the ability to thrive without human intervention.

Ignore this if that was not aimed at me but I'm not disputing there are free living bees but whether survival despite varroa is truly due to genetics rather than factors like environment or behaviour. Whilst not free living bees, @pargyle has given the best evidenced example I've come across on this forum of bees thriving in the UK without varroa control but even then the evidence suggests it is largely the conditions in which he keeps his rather than genetics as by his account, previously high varroa count bees end up with much lower counts by virtue of his husbandry approach in a very short space of time.

''Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.''

The issue I have is not with the idea that there is or can be a genetic component but that survival must be genetic- the other possible explanations have not actually been eliminated.

 

[user 20297]

......not airmed at you, but inspired by your prevous comment.

 

[Beesnaturally]

The issue I have is not with the idea that there is or can be a genetic component but that survival must be genetic- the other possible explanations have not actually been eliminated.

You'd have to set aside the whole of Darwinism, most of biology and the competence of the authors of the now rife scientific studies to think that wasn't the case. For goodness sake, the microsatellite locations of the very genes that confer the various kinds of resistance are largely known.

It's known (scientifically known) too that these capabilities are genetically transmissable to offspring.

(And, to bring in your point, most of the resistance capabilities are exactly behaviours. And yes, those behaviours are genetically enabled)

That's not to say that bees will thrive if there is arsenic in their water supply. But anywhere medicated bees can thrive, free living ones can.

(As long as you don't undercut their resistance with unresistant drones and queen imports - which are not genetically equipped and will inject their unequipped genes into the local population.)

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

As long as you don't undercut their resistance with queen imports

And your proof of this - or can we just add anti-import to your anti-vax zealotry?

 

[Beesnaturally]

And your proof of this - or can we just add anti-import to your anti-vax zealotry?

Its like that thing: If there are 6 oranges in the fruit bowl, and Sammy eats 2, how many are left in the fruitbowl? [1]

We can work out the answer (4) without having Sammy or the fruitbowl in the room.

If we breed golden retrievers, and a great dane dog comes in and covers all the ladies, the offspring won't be pure bred golden retreivers

We can know that without putting an alsation dog to any golden retriever lady dogs.

Study that idea a little while, and see if you can make it make sense.

In case you can't let me know and I'll dig out some of the the half-dozen or more published peer-reviewed papers that have been made available to this list that speak of that very issue. I'll go through them and copy and paste the precise wording for you to read.

I can't offer any more. If that doesn't work I suggest you start a religion.

[1] the usual simple assumptions apply: nobody else has taken or added any oranges to the fruitbowl; none have evaporated, been transported to a differrent time or dimension or anything of that sort. Nobody has broken the fruitbowl. The universe hasn't suddenly expanded to 100 times its former size, including you me, Sammy and the fruitbowl and all the oranges except one, which we now can't see because its rolled out of sight under all the giant oranges.

Have I forgotten anything?

BTW what anti-vax zealotry? I have never had the slightest doubt about the wisdom of taking vaccinations. I think you've slighted me on this before, and I've corrected you before. Please stop it.

 

[Wilco]

You'd have to set aside the whole of Darwinism, most of biology and the competence of the authors of the now rife scientific studies to think that wasn't the case. For goodness sake, the microsatellite locations of the very genes that confer the various kinds of resistance are largely known.

It's known (scientifically known) too that these capabilities are genetically transmissable to offspring.

(And, to bring in your point, most of the resistance capabilities are exactly behaviours. And yes, those behaviours are genetically enabled)

That's not to say that bees will thrive if there is arsenic in their water supply. But anywhere medicated bees can thrive, free living ones can.

(As long as you don't undercut their resistance with unresistant drones and queen imports - which are not genetically equipped and will inject their unequipped genes into the local population.)

I'm not claiming there isn't a genetic basis. As before, the issue is the jump that it must be genetic when colonies survive yet other explanations have not been adequately eliminated. In many of the examples it may well prove to be genetic but as it stands, it is not proven it is genetic in many cases, including your own bees. As with pargle's bees, there is plenty of evidence to suggest non genetic basis for survival.

 

[pargyle]

I'm not claiming there isn't a genetic basis. As before, the issue is the jump that it must be genetic when colonies survive yet other explanations have not been adequately eliminated. In many of the examples it may well prove to be genetic but as it stands, it is not proven it is genetic in many cases, including your own bees. As with pargle's bees, there is plenty of evidence to suggest non genetic basis for survival.

I think it may vary from location to location ... I've never really subscribed to the premise that all bees who survive without treatment do so because they have evolved or have become genetically adapted, it may be part of the mix, it may be learned behaviour, it may husbandry or hive conditions or local forage, apiary location and climate. They all seem to have the opportunity to play some part in some colony's ability to thrive and survive. We should just be grateful that in some cases - on a large and small scale - it works for that beekeeper in that apiary.

TF is never going to be an easy (or, at present, popular) path to follow in beekeeping. As I've said, many times, on here - nobody should just go TF free and hope for the best because the likelihood is that they will experience the worst ... would I like to see more people dipping their feet in the TF pool ? Yes, of course, but only with those colonies that, with proper testing, (regular sugar rolls), demonstrate a lower mite load than in other comparable colonies. If these low mite colonies are healthy, productive and meet the other attributes favoured by beekeepers in their stock - then these are the colonies to keep and breed from. But ... be wary that mite loads can vary dramatically from time to time - in both directions and don't assume a couple of tests are the full picture,

I see less people disparaging TF than a few years ago - perhaps because there are more people trying and succeeding - but it's early days and it's only a beginning.

 

[Wilco]

I think it may vary from location to location ... I've never really subscribed to the premise that all bees who survive without treatment do so because they have evolved or have become genetically adapted, it may be part of the mix, it may be learned behaviour, it may husbandry or hive conditions or local forage, apiary location and climate. They all seem to have the opportunity to play some part in some colony's ability to thrive and survive. We should just be grateful that in some cases - on a large and small scale - it works for that beekeeper in that apiary.

TF is never going to be an easy (or, at present, popular) path to follow in beekeeping. As I've said, many times, on here - nobody should just go TF free and hope for the best because the likelihood is that they will experience the worst ... would I like to see more people dipping their feet in the TF pool ? Yes, of course, but only with those colonies that, with proper testing, (regular sugar rolls), demonstrate a lower mite load than in other comparable colonies. If these low mite colonies are healthy, productive and meet the other attributes favoured by beekeepers in their stock - then these are the colonies to keep and breed from. But ... be wary that mite loads can vary dramatically from time to time - in both directions and don't assume a couple of tests are the full picture,

I see less people disparaging TF than a few years ago - perhaps because there are more people trying and succeeding - but it's early days and it's only a beginning.

Strongly agree with this.

 

[Beesnaturally]

I'm not claiming there isn't a genetic basis. As before, the issue is the jump that it must be genetic when colonies survive yet other explanations have not been adequately eliminated. In many of the examples it may well prove to be genetic but as it stands, it is not proven it is genetic in many cases, including your own bees. As with pargle's bees, there is plenty of evidence to suggest non genetic basis for survival.

I think, excuse me, this is religious thinking. No one can prove that it isn't because there are some miniature garden gnomes buried nearby, or any of an infinite number of other things. But when incredibly deeply rooted theory theory matches a wide range of evidence, and there are no counter-examples, you'd be going out on a limb if you thought the garden gnome theory as plausible as the scientific one.

 

[Beesnaturally]

I think it may vary from location to location ...

Of course it does. Everything bee varies from location to location; and having the forage and the nesting sites to support a local feral population is a pre-requisite.

The science is clear; the (genetic) husbandry is straightforward. I don't mean to be rude but if you are insufficiently clear about what those things tell you won't make the connection.

 

[Beesnaturally]

FWIW: I spend a long time arguing with US beekeepers about natural selection and no-treatment beekeeping. I often asked 'Do you understand what I mean by natural selection' and they always replied, yes of course.

It eventually became clear that in almost all cases they had _heard_ about natural selection... and that was about it. No only had they not been taught evolution in school; very often they belonged to religious traditions that denied and despised Darwinism.

So I was onto a loser. I couldn't explain myself, because they neither had, nor were inclined to acquire, the understanding needed to follow the explanations.

I'm still disinclined to have to think that in the UK in 2023 something of the same sort is occurring. But I think it has to come.

This blog/thread is intended as is, again, clear from the OP above, for those who already understand the basic principles of natural selection, and who understand how, and how forcefully, they apply to the case of honeybees and honeybee populations.

If you don't follow the reasoning by now it can only be because you are lacking the necessary comprehension of basic evolutionary thinking, and its parallels in animal husbandry. And I can't help you any longer: lord knows I've tried.

If you are so inclined...

https://www.neok12.com/Natural-Sele... the process,be eliminated from the ecosystem
https://necsi.edu/how-is-breeding-l...s similar to natural,they are also passed on.
Breeding - selection of parents by humans

Natural selection/evolution - selection of parents by the best fitted to the environment

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

as I said - pure unadulterated zealotry

 

[fian]

It's funny but scientists and some members forget the basics.
1. Varroa has selected bee populations for 40 years, wild and from apiaries.
2. It is curious but all the surviving wild colonies do it under two parameters. (Natural comb and small size breed).
3. It has been shown that both the bee and its varroa parasite are guided mainly by smell, which means that each and every one of the chemical substances present in the hive can turn the wheel of natural selection in any direction.

 

[user 20297]

Ignore this if that was not aimed at me but I'm not disputing there are free living bees but whether survival despite varroa is truly due to genetics rather than factors like environment or behaviour. Whilst not free living bees, @pargyle has given the best evidenced example I've come across on this forum of bees thriving in the UK without varroa control but even then the evidence suggests it is largely the conditions in which he keeps his rather than genetics as by his account, previously high varroa count bees end up with much lower counts by virtue of his husbandry approach in a very short space of time.

''Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.''

The issue I have is not with the idea that there is or can be a genetic component but that survival must be genetic- the other possible explanations have not actually been eliminated.

I think that @Beesnaturally has pointed out many times that organisms survive or die because of the interplay between environmental factors and their genetics; that's probably why he gets so frustrated at the regular demands from people that the claims he makes for his bees count for nothing if they are unable to repeat that performance within other environments or to breed their characteristics into other populations.
Clearly, if bees survive in an environment it follows that their genes are suited to it; that still applies when the environment has been improved by human assistance. If the environment changes and the bees don't survive, their genes are not suited to it; that still applies if the bees are in a situation where the beekeeper could have chosen to help them.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Clearly, if bees survive in an environment it follows that their genes are suited to it

but he has yet to prove that his purported 'survivir' colonies are that - not just another feral colony formed from a swarm from a managed hice the previous year

 

[user 20297]

but he has yet to prove that his purported 'survivir' colonies are that - not just another feral colony formed from a swarm from a managed hice the previous year

Have faith.