Natural Beekeeping Network

[Rivermom]

I am very much inclined to agree with the points in this 'Evolutionary Beekeeping' article. And my experience this past year has only reinforced this.
I had been beekeeping without problems for a few years. I was unhappy with the level of interferance involved with the box hive system, and was having trouble working with the cumbersome boxes. But my bees seemed healthy and happy.
I had to get another beekeeper to help me work the hives, harvesting and such. He insisted on checking on the brood, which was something I generally only did in an emergency. And he discovered varroa in the brood, and strongly urged me to treat them, saying it was a very severe infestation.
I treated for varroa. My hives both died and disappeared within the year.
Yes, there are other factors. It was a cold wet summer. I live in an area with too much grass and not enough trees and flowers. And a coincidence is not necessarily evidence of causation.
But, if I can get a healthy swarm for my new top bar hive, i will only annoy them very seldom, when I go to ask them if they can spare me a wee drop of honey.
And a good book for us to read is called 'One Straw Revolution'
rereading 'Silent Spring' might be a good idea too.
_________________
Don't push the River. It flows by itself.

[mikebispham]

Post removed on second thoughts - apologies - Mike

[mikebispham]

[mikebispham]

[mrwizard]

the last 2 sentences in the first paper:

Feral colonies composed of mixed genetic traits have survived for several years, but colonies of genetically uniform bees perished in an island ecosystem. Feral colonies located remote from beekeeper activity could now have strains quite resistant to varroa mites and should be investigated.

seems like varroa resistance/tolerance genes are out there. given a chance, natural selection will do the job.
_________________
The bees want a hollow tree or log with a small entrance. It is our job to provide that for them.

[mikebispham]

Discussion Paper: Problems of establishing resistance; a response to Norman Carreck

In the two most recent issues of BBKA News Norman Carreck has supplied a very useful overview of the current situation with regard to varroa resistant bees, showing that there is optimism about the possibility of locating and raising resistant strains under controlled conditions at Sussex University.[1] In his conclusions however Carreck supplies a strategy for future use of such strains that seems deeply pessimistic:

"Once a suitable strain has been located at Sussex, this will passed on to members of the Bee Farmers Association for testing in the field, and ultimately for multiplication and sale of queens to beekeepers. Inevitably the process of bee breeding is time consuming and labour intensive, but it is to be hoped that we can significantly improve the hygienic behaviour of our own strain of bee. The degree to which such improved bees will ever be widely used in Britain is, however, dependent on the development of a significant greater rearing industry than currently exists in the UK."

"Bee breeding is of course a continuous process, and one should not underestimate the practical difficulties of maintaining a desired strain of bee. In addition, inbreeding in any organism is, in the long term harmful, and due to their haploiddiploid nature, honeybees have less genetic diversity than that of many other groups of insects."

If I understand correctly, Carreck works from the basis that the sole hope for future UK beekeeping lies is the management of continuing disease problems, through massive and continuous queen rearing, foreseeing insurmountable obstacles to the establishment of the resistant strains.

This article will argue that this picture does not represent the best strategy for the future of UK beekeeping. The obstacles Carreck anticipates can be sidestepped, and the perils inherent in the reduction of genetic variation that he recognises can be entirely avoided. An alternative vision is possible, in which a return to a thriving honeybee population needing no such support is within reach. Carreck's pessimism, according to this view, is entirely unwarranted.

The strategy required by this vision differs from Carreck's in two key ways.

First, it recognises, and seeks to eliminate a widely unrecognised flaw in modern beekeeping. Systematic failure to select for resistance when bees are reproduced has led to the routine maintenance of bloodlines unadapted to the current pest and disease environment.

Secondly, it brings to the fore the role of wild honeybees in locating and maintaining resistant strains, through the mechanism of natural selection. The aim then will be to work at reducing the damage done to bloodlines by failure to select, and to work at recovering the beneficial input of wild honeybees.

To make the case for the first change I must establish the grounds for my diagnosis of the leading cause of unadapted strains. Failure to select for resistance is, I have suggested, the result of the widespread practice of reproduction from previously medicated stocks. I offer then a premise, upon which the arguments for my vision will be predicated:

Reproduction from medicated bees results in the replication of unadapted bee strains, and undermines the emergence of resistance in apiaries.

That reproduction from sick specimens is a terrible idea was to previous generations common knowledge. It is an ancient and unchallenged principle of husbandry. To produce healthy stock it is absolutely necessary to breed only from healthy stock. Reproduction from strains that have been kept alive through medication completely undermines this principle. It produces at best a new generation requiring just the same medication as that required by the parents. If repeated it leads to a spiral of decay in health, as the predator evolves to take full advantage of the available foodsource. It is important to note that this traditional wisdom is fully supported by modern biology. The modern analysis of the mechanisms by which resistance arises in nature - by continuous adaptation of the fittest strains to the ever-changing environment - supplies a full understanding of both the processes that breeders take advantage of, and the way in which medication disrupts the development of resistance.

We can then work from the understanding that reproduction from stock that has been artificially maintained short-circuits the mechanism by which those strains best suited to the environment replace those strains less well suited. Our premise is support by sound science, allowing us to apply this general analysis to the particular problems faced by beekeepers with some confidence. We can understand that every time we allow reproduction from artificially maintained colonies, we send ill-adapted bloodlines into the next generation. Every time we allow drones to fly from such colonies we send ill-adapted genes into the locality, undermining both the resistance that would otherwise develop naturally in the wild populations, and any resistant strains that might be present in our neighbours' apiaries. Shockingly, it can be seen that the failure of bees to develop resistance is entirely due to our own actions. Both well-established biological science and the most fundamental aspect of traditional stock rearing practice show us that we beekeepers are actually the cause of our own problem.

To return to Norman Carreck's conclusions, and the obstacles he foresees to the maintenance of resistant bloodlines. We can now appreciate that the situation he anticipates would be the result of the presence of artificially maintained strains, unadapted to the prevailing disease environment. These strains would undercut any hope of imported resistant strains becoming established. Equipped with this understanding we can now imagine an entirely different approach, and to begin to explore strategies designed toward an entirely different outcome from that which he foresees as the best possible. Rather than looking forward to a depressing future in which bred queens must repeatedly renew continually sickening bloodlines, we can instead imagine a return to a world in which beekeeping is entirely free of a constant war between chemicals and ever-evolving mites. In this picture both beekeepers and wild honey bees work together, and thrive in unison.

We can do this by rejecting the idea that we must constantly fight a losing battle against unadapted bloodlines, and replacing it with the notion that we can remove those bloodlines from the field altogether.

This can be achieved by nothing more than a return to time-tested traditional methods, using the established and scientifically-supported principles of sound husbandry, together with an active programme of support for the wild population that continually hones bee health through natural selection for the fittest strains.

A grassroots shift in the approach to reproduction, and an appreciation of the critical benefits supplied by a healthy wild population offers, then, an infinitely more cheering hope for the future of beekeeping. This strategy works with the grain of nature, and dovetails perfectly with the aims of conservationists, and wider environmental concerns about loss of ecological diversity. Furthermore, we can, happily, work on a largely local basis. Nothing more than simple guidance is needed from central bodies; traditional principles and a fairly basic understanding of the relevant mechanisms supply all the tools required. Area by area, beekeepers can plan to control their local disease environment, simply by facilitating the emergence of resistance - aided, if needed, by resistant bloodlines from Sussex and elsewhere. This vision represents a huge improvement over the pessimistic picture painted by Carreck, and is, I suggest, an aim worthy of close examination.


Mike Bispham
http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

[1] Varroa Tolerant Bees: Dream or Reality, BBKA News No.s 176 & 177;

[mikebispham]

[Firegazer]

Mike (and Others),
I've just read this thread all the way through for the first time. Wow! What an interesting and relevant discussion from everybody. Half thesis defence and half bar-fight

I've also read (and archived!) your current website pages, links and articles which were very informative.

A few comments on the thread, in case it's useful:

1) Your thesis seemed very clearly argued and I'm in total agreement with your conclusion of medication shaping the genetic distribution of the bees strongly towards further medication dependence (probably as far as a position where no medication - feral bee colonies - are unable to survive).

2) CCD (the sudden unexpected type) might be more complex than just this weakening effect, as was pointed out earlier in the thread;

3) There are two parts of the discussion, as you tried to steer it:

a) the basic science of Natural Selection and the effects of influencing which colonies (really gene combinations) progress through breeding - this is just combining well known science and pointing out that it applies to bee colonies in the same way as other species;

b) how to use that knowledge to do something useful to recover the current dodgy position for bees in the UK (and elsewhere);

4) I don't see that 3 (a) needs any beekeeping experience at all, or empirical data, or references, or peer-reviewed papers (as was suggested by some). That was Darwin's problem and he sorted it with lots of such evidence. Dawkins' books are good modern explanations of the basic science. It's all fact.

5) The second bit 3 (b) is the hard, practical, bit and I didn't read anything that suggests you were trying to tell any of us how that should be done (despite that accusation). I'm guessing the more experienced beekeepers, with practical techniques, hive designs, a wide spread of geography, etc, etc are the best people to throw us some ideas on that and some of the best posts showed that starting?

6) Your use of terminology was a bit 'reduced' on occasion: bee genetics being a bit tricky. Bees clearly don't 'adapt' genetically, they just live and die, possibly passing on genes to the next generation; gene populations (combinations and their proportions) adapt within the species; it's even more tricky than the classic Pea plant example because the colony is the thing that is tested by environmental pressures and the queen, and previous queens, in the form of horny drones she once met, are the units of genetic expression . . . I don't think this affects any of your 3 (a) conclusions, but may be really important in the planning for 3 (b).

7) Condescending at times? Oh yes But probably no more than others involved in scientific debate that I've worked with over the years! The abuse you were given, even on your 3 (a) statements, was fairly unedifying too, so we could call that a score draw in footie terms. If anything, I was impressed by your coolness and focus on the debate.

In conclusion then, thanks to Mike and everybody who contributed so far (and also the moderators for letting this progress) for sticking to the job of thrashing this out, despite cultural/etiquette 'issues'. I've learnt a huge amount from it.

It seems to be a really important 'knowledge tool' that will be needed - with all the experience and practical skills that folks here have - to come up with a sensible and practical way to improve things in bee-land.

I'd love to be involved in that process and will help in any way I can. I live on the edge of a bit of protected woodland (in an SSSI) and will be building my first Warré tomorrow, hopefully. I have only one colony at present, but am planning to increase that next year.

FG

[PranaBeats]

I would like to add one thing to this discussion. Evolution is not a scientific fact. It is a theory and a very disputable one at that because it is full of holes.

To say that organisms do not "learn" has been disproved and Darwin, way before the scientific community even endorsed his theories, commented at the end of his life that he might have been wrong about his own work.

Survival of the fittest is not a reality that is its own motto. It is circumstantial and dependent on ENVIRONMENT.

If, as humans, we create an environment for the bees to flourish, then we are not undermining their evolution, quite the opposite, we are helping them.

I suggest for anyone who does believe that the unscientific Darwinist dogma is an absolute reality (what is absolute in the Universe?) to read the work of cellular biologist Dr. Bruce Lipton called "The Biology of Belief" where he scientifically proves, not anectodically as I have seen here, that genetics are not deterministic and that evolution is based on the right set and setting. This field of science is called epigenetics and is not "fringe" science. It's just that the mainstream doesn't know much about it.

To hold on to one's own belief system through the lens of science is a dangerous path as history has often told us that science only represents the knowledge of the times and not the knowledge of the infinite. Everything is impermanent.

Peace,

Sud Ram

[mikebispham]

Hello Sud Ram,

I agree that evoltion has to be described as a theory, and that epigenetics challenges some of the widely accepted ideas about it. But I see epigentics as adding to and supplementing our understanding of the way species adapt to an ever-changing environment through the promotion of genetic combinations best suited, not challenging that central idea.

I think its worth acknowledging that there are strong and weak 'theories' and that evolution and natural selection for the fittest strains are among the best-tested theories in science. They may be incomplete - as you point out all theories are of their nature incomplete. It doesn't stop them being excellent theories worth utilyzing to help us understand what happens in the world of bees.

[quote="PranaBeats"
If, as humans, we create an environment for the bees to flourish, then we are not undermining their evolution, quite the opposite, we are helping them.
[/quote]

Well, _if_ we create such an environment, then certainly we may be minimising any damage we do in the sense of making those stocks affected by our actions less able to flourish in the present environment. But one of the main features of this discussion is the idea that by focussing on the health of indivuals (our colonies) we actually undermine the health of the species (in the form of the local breeding population.

Whether you find the wider theory of evoltion to your taste of not is up to you. The important thing is to recognise the unfortunate mechanism that 'helping' our bees actually undermines our own futures. That the problems we are experiencing are of our own making through neglect of an appreciation of the nature of the genetic flow through the generations. That flow is well described by the theory of natural selection for the fittest strains.

The creation of the environment you describe would entail the restoration of natural forage, the provision of a range of different nesting sites, and, essentially, the freedom for natural selection to take its course.

'Evolutionary beekeeping' simply tries to interfere as little as possible in the bees' own natural health-discovery system. Keeping weak bees alive fatally weakens the surrounding wild bees and the future genepool. It effectively poisons the future generations. Such actions cannot therefore be considered in such an environment.

Best wishes,

Mike
_________________
http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

[Brosville]

"Keeping weak bees alive fatally weakens the surrounding wild bees and the future genepool"

-utter, utter dangerous short-sighted, simplistic and deeply unintelligent cobblers! Pseudo-scientific claptrap of the very worst sort!
If as we do, live in a soup of chemicals there is more than "weakness" involved - it's rather like saying that the Auschwitz victims were genetically "weak" because they couldn't withstand Zyklon B......or to deny "Chernobyl Children" therapeutic iodine because they're "genetically too weak" (to withstand radiation after-effects without a bit of help.......)
If we took your lunatic eugenics theories to their logical conclusion we'd let all life on earth die out because it's "genetically inferior"
I'd sooner start at a more sensible point - recognise that bees are the canaries in our coalmine, and remove the poisons that are killing all life, and whilst we do that use simple and harmless nostrums (sugar, essential oils and homoeopathy) to keep what stocks we have going, until such time as the poisonous times are past - then we actually do have a gene pool - your way we let everything die out that doesn't thrive on neonicotinoid cocktails!
_________________
http://farmco.co.uk
Sussex Natural Beekeepers' Forum

[PranaBeats]

While I do agree that Mike's perspective is a tad... well... focused :> I'm not sure that there is any need to get upset over it.

It reminds me of the days when I had my first deep spiritual realisation and understood that desire is the root of suffering. I then went on to try to make everyone understand that I had found the absolute truth and the right way to solve the entire world's problems.

With time, patience, humility and experience I was taught otherwise... even though in essence the truth is the same, there are many aspects to life that one needs to encompass and embrace to make space for consciousness.

It would be interesting to see if you, Mike, are as absolute with your-self and your own lifestyle as with your perspective on bees.

Also, have you read Dr. Lipton's book? He will disagree with you on the complement part of the evolution theory. What he exposes with peer reviewed research, again, not anecdotal, is that survival of the fittest is not a governing dynamic, it is merely a symptom. To base any theory on a symptom is a very problematic approach that has brought people and our planet to face very uncomfortable situations...

Peace,

Sud Ram

[WidgetMan]

A couple of basic GCSE-level clarifications:

A queen can live for 4-5 years and be actively laying genetic material from her initial mating flights for 3 years at least. However, from first lay to the first lay of her first daughter can be as little as 10 to 12 weeks at the height of the season.

The daughter of a varoa destructor female will lay after 4-5 weeks, about twice as fast as a honey bee (source for approximate timings: Adrian and Claire Waring, Teach Yourself Beekeeping 2009 edition). So statistically, genetic variation can appear in a varoa destructor mite twice as fast as in a honey bee (ie by the time the bee has had 3 generations the mite has finished it’s 6th). Therefore the honey bee will always, statistically, be playing catchup with the mite. So in these circumstances the mite will primarily rely on its rate of generational growth to beat the bee, and the bee will begin to react using other methods to overcome the challenges presented, eg changes in learned social behaviour like grooming, until its generational rate can throw up a genetic variation that throws the mite.

Natural selection and selective breeding are two different processes. Selective breeding requires human intervention to select progeny against chosen criteria. This sways genetic development towards those criteria. Natural selection is a slower process because it relies on random genetic change being supported by environmental or other factors. Because of its random nature, natural selection can take a length of time equivalent to non-accelerated environmental change and selective breeding is the human way of accelerating this process in a directed fashion.

Genetic engineering bypasses all of this and attempts to complete the move to the desired outcome within 1 to 2 generations – quick but expensive and arguably can be risky (sourced from a range of basic GCSE biology texts).

However, bee biology means that beekeepers who do not artificially inseminate will always be at the mercy of the local bee population as we have no control over the drone meeting area where the queens fly to for mating.

So how can natural beekeepers help out? To counter the mite threat the social learning of hygienic behaviour can be encouraged by using sugar as an incentive and teaching aid, and regression to natural cell sizes and distribution allows the bees to become smaller and reduce the cell capping times. Responsible breeders, and who isn’t within the natural beekeeping network, will include hive and grooming hygiene within the selection criteria used to select breeding colonies in the hope that this promotes a move towards a genetically-based trait to cleanliness. To counter other pests and environmental stressors we can use a housing system that reduces the impact of these threats, ie promotes ventilation, no ‘dark corners’, simple and cheap to build, flexible, etc. We can also resort to simple ‘non-toxic’ or ‘low-toxic’ (depending on choice) means of intervention. When the worst happens we can still merge colonies or re-queen but use our own colonies and queens reared by ourselves for this purpose.

So this means that what we can do is provide a management protocol and environment that reduces the environmental stresses on the bees we provide for, eg housing designed to reduce the impact of stressors like escaping hive scent and the growth of fungus/mould, allowing for varied/natural cell sizes and spread, reducing the impact of intervention and by smoothing population growths of parasites and symbiotic organisms using methods that do not add to the stresses already faced by the honey bees. We also need to breed more colonies and queens ourselves for sharing within our community so that others are drawn in and not put off because there are no suitable bees available on top bars or otherwise.

Each of us will meet this cocktail as a compromise between ‘commercial’ performance and natural husbandry, effort, resources, time and cost. Where this compromise sits is an individual decision. But our presence on this forum implies that we all trying to learn from the experience and knowledge of others.

What we can all do, whether we host bees or not, is act as ambassadors for ‘another way’ of keeping bees that accentuates a reduced environmental stress for the bee. This will, for some, go beyond how we host our bees into how we direct our spending and the organisations we support. We can each, in some little way, affect the outcomes of all the stakeholders in the bee economy and we should think wisely about how we each do this.

Hope these ramblings help someone.

Widgetman (BSc )