Regarding Aleksander's proposed experiment to keep highly infested colonies
with varroa, Peter wrote:
> Logic states that your suggested experiment would be better
> conducted in the locations where V.d. has been present over a relatively
extended
> period and where acaricide resistance is highly pronounced.
I'm not sure this is necessarily so. As I interpret it, the goal of
Aleksander's proposed experiment is twofold; Attempting to isolate bees that
can coexist with varroa AT THE SAME TIME that he is attempting to NOT
develop a line of Varroa d. that is highly resistant to manmade chemical
treatments. His proposed experiment included two sets of hives: ones to be
treated to keep varroa at bay and ones to be left to the ravages of varroa.
If the "ravaged" hives reached critical Varroa levels, he proposed to boost
them with Varroa-free brood from the treated hives. I assume it is from the
ravaged hives that he would choose his stock best able to exist with varroa.
The logic of conducting this experiment in the locations where V.d. has been
present over a relatively extended period and where acaricide resistance is
highly pronounced may give a "better" starting point towards tolerant bees,
but is a bad starting place for maintaining a population of Varroa d. that
is NOT resistant to chemicals.
This later goal (maintaining a population of Varroa d. that is NOT resistant
to chemicals) struck me as a similar strategy to the GMO Bt crops, where
farmers are encouraged to plant non-GMO fields in close proximity to their
GMO fields so the populations of targeted pests don't quickly develop into
plagues of Bt-resistant super bugs. The rational here being that the Bt GMO
survivor bugs will fly over and mate with the ravaging bugs in the non-Bt
GMO fields, thereby maintaining an overall gene pool that is not dominated
by Bt-resistant genes. It is plausible in theory that bugs from treated
fields will mate with bugs from non-treated fields hence maintaining a
general population that is not stacked at the resistant end. In reality it
is doubtful that the numbers game will work out that way, but that
discussion belongs on a different list.
The model of maintaining an overall gene pool that is not dominated by
Bt-resistant genes does not apply in Aleksander's proposed experiment due to
the difference in reproduction in insects in general vs. reproduction in
Varroa specifically. Insects are open mated and the gene pool mixes more
freely. However, Varroa reproduction is closed within the single colony
environment (brothers mating with sisters in sealed cells). This is not to
say that there is NEVER gene cross-over, but the reality of the numbers game
makes it even LESS likely that the population of non-chemical resistant
Varroa in Aleksander's yards will stand much of a chance of
thriving/surviving/propagating in an open environment that is dominated by
chemical treatment survivors. The probability is that the susceptible gene
pool will be overwhelmed by the resistant gene pool simply because the "open
environment" has been stacked with chemical survivors. The Varroa
population in the ravaged hives will be akin to "heirloom seeds"! They
still exist solely because efforts are made to maintain the heirlooms.
This issue of what has the Varroa gene pool become is a big part of the
overall Varroa problem and a BIG reason that it is so important that
chemical treatments be abandoned. As long as the majority of the beekeeping
industry continues using chemical treatments, Varroa will continue to become
more resistant to them. IT'S HOW THE MODEL WORKS!
Tom Barret has been lamenting the futility of the chemical treatments:
> So meantime we must soldier on with the chemicals, and to a
> lesser extent the IPM treatments, waiting for the silver bullet
IPM is perhaps the best weapon we're going to get. Integrated Pest
Management INCLUDES(!) chemical treatments as part of the integrated
management. The reason people won't accept IPM as a silver bullet is it's
not as easy as inserting a strip today and taking it out at a later
convenient date (or leaving it in until it is convenient or just forgetting
about it because it's never convenient).
Perhaps the "silver bullet" is a beekeepers Holy Grail. Perhaps it simply
doesn't exist. Truth is, today anyone can beat Varroa destructor by
employing any number of strategies that will give their bees the upper hand.
Truth is, IPM is not as easy as strip in/strip out, but it will work. Folks
will argue that IPM is simply too labor intensive for commercial enterprise,
and I will not argue against them. The bottom line in that is there is no
acceptable approved Varroa destructor treatment on today's market that will
support a viable commercial operation. NONE! The chemicals aren't doing it
folks! The short-lived band aid chemical solutions are failing miserably.
IPM includes:
mechanical controls (drone trapping, sugar dusting, sticky boards, etc)
breeding controls (SMR bees, Russian bees), monitoring Varroa levels
Formic (and other) acids
I' not a convinced/converted 49er, but I won't count it out either.
FGMO?
and yes, IPM includes chemicals controls, but only after monitoring
shows that the other methods aren't keeping varroa below damaging levels.
Anything less and one isn't practicing IPM. And steering clear of IPM
waiting for the next best chemical control is just lame beekeeping. And
lamenting that one can't make a living off bees without cheap easy chemical
controls is living in ignorant bliss(?) of the fact that your own ledgers
are telling you that you are embracing a doomed pursuit of trying to make a
living off bees without cheap easy chemical controls! Economy has no
feelings! It's like Nature! Nature doesn't lament when natural disasters
claim hundreds or thousands! Economics don't lament when the bottom line
claims causalities either! It just is.
So, to wrap up this epistle, interesting experiment proposed as it looks at
the another end of the Varroa problem (breeding a better mite), but it seems
an uphill battle. Silver bullet? Best practice IPM while you're waiting.
Aaron Morris - thinking gone for the weekend!
|
