Josh wrote: "There is no other explanation other than that the bees already
contained the information."  Roger White commented: "... there could be
another explaination, a lot of bee behaviour appears to be learnt by the
bees and this could also be the case in combating Varroa - in fact a lot of
evidence seems to point in this direction."

As there seem to be two alternative approaches under discussion - breeding
Varroa resistant bees, versus modifying the brood nest to create small cells
that in some way decrease Varroa
reproduction  - and both appear really to be getting somewhere - could we
lurkers press for more information/comment on what mechanisms are believed
to be triggered in each approach.  Let me set up an Aunt Sally - and then
duck:

1.  NEW animal behaviour results only from chance mutation of genes , which
can happen anytime or never - but when a succession of changes is needed for
a major shift in behaviour it can take a very long time (thoudands if not
millions of years).   As western honeybees have been exposed to Varroa for
only a few decades, evoution of beneficial genes is unlikely (not
impossible) to have occurred.  So Josh is most probably right that the genes
for any necessary beneficial behaviour (if they exist) are most likely have
been in bees a long time.
2. Animals do however learn to WIDEN the application of an instinctive
behaviour (provided the instinct is provided by its genes).  So birds that
eat seeds have an instinct to peck bright objects and can culturally extend
this to learning to peck silver foil milk bottle tops - but vultures whose
instinct is to peck rotten meat selected by smell would not have the
starting point for learning to peck scent-less foil.  So Roger is right to
say that bees can learn a behaviour (provided it can start from an
instinctive behaviour that is within their genes).
2. ALL western colonies do not resist Varroa - so the mere presence of the
beneficial genes must be insufficient.  Their effect must be being
heightened in some way in each of the two approaches.  The breeding approach
must be intensifying the genes - or breeding out other genes that counter
the action of the beneficials.  In contrast, the small cell approach must be
creating conditions in which the beneficial behaviour is more OFTEN
triggered or is more EFFICIENT whenever triggered, so bees are 'learning' to
combat Varroa,  without any intensification of particular genes.
3. Varroa are an abnormality within a bees' nest  - so the existing
behaviours that can be intensified are most likely responses bees already
make to the long-established pests/diseases.  We have therefore:
(a) braula, a non-bee object that attaches to bees - so harmless that
normally bees make minimal response, but bees do sometimes 'bite' braula?
Could that biting be the behaviour enhanced by the breeders to the point
mites are recognised as mini-braula and regularly attacked?  If this theory
is correct, varroa resistant colonies ought to be unusually swift in
removing braula.  Has any one ever looked for such correlation? And do the
mites falling from Russian bees show many have been bitten?
(b) ejection of larvae (sealed as well as unsealed) that are indicating
distress by moving to an abnormal extent or for an abnormally long period
due to infection with EFB (which starves the larvae to death).  Could the
breeders be intensifying that behaviour and the bees 'learning' to eject a
larvae troubled by mites in its cell as a sideways extension of its normal
EFB response?  And could the reason small-cells help be that smaller cells
intensify the irritation caused by the mites sealed in with a larvae by
jamming the mite tighter onto the larva's body, so triggering a quicker and
more widespread application of the instinctive behaviour for ejecting
distressed larvae?  If this theory is correct, colonies that show EFB
symptoms (have poor ejection responses) might also exhibit higher mite
loads.  Is there such correlation?
(c) ejection of dead smelly pupae that have died of AFB.  Mites do not kill
pupae so this behaviour does not seem so likely to be relevant to varroa
control.  But if it is triggered by a change in smell from the sealed
brood - and if a distressed larvae and /or mites changes the smell of a
sealed cell -  then it could be.

Note I have NOT included the theory that small cell increase the density of
bees on the comb, leading to more bees to do house-keeping and
automatically more hygenic behaviour (of some sort).  If it was that easy,
all
we would have to do would be to temporarily slip clearer boards under
supers,
so crowding the brood boxes, and the colonies should immediately start
ejecting Varroa - I have never heard that happens.  But Dee added: "what is
Hygenic behavior and shouldn't it be relooked at  to what it
really is maybe? A learned trait? and inherited trait? " - so let's do so -
it may be both, a lateral adaptation of an inherited trait.

The above propositions are there to throw rocks at.  Would someone please
shine a
little light,   to help the hobbyist understand why the big boys are getting
somewhere - so we can do more to take some steps in the same directions even
if we do not have the same opportunities to experiment with large numbers of
colonies.   Our feeble contributions from UK tend to get ignored - perhaps
we might as well use Gaelic as Roger Classical Greek.  We are
worth helping because, surely, there must be some intelligent hobbyists in
US as well who would gain, even if we hear little from them.

Robin Dartington

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::