Bees for Development Journal 110
IS THE VARROA PROBLEM A HOMEMADE ISSUE?
André Wermelinger, FreeTheBees, Switzerland
A scientific essay. The general consensus is that the Varroa mite is the main problem in mainstream beekeeping. Would it be conceivable that we may have confused cause, symptom and trigger?
loss rate of approximately 50%. The author did not use any acid treatments (using the swarming instinct as the natural base and Thymol to reduce the Varroa count) and recorded the lowest winter losses. Furthermore, his natural swarmkeeping methods recorded an increase in reproductive capacity, which exceeds the yearly natural doubling rate of colony numbers. If these figures were to be compared with the Swiss winter hive losses over recent years, untreated colonies could probably have similar or better survival rates. The question is how scientifically correct are Pflugfelder’s and others‘ frequently quoted “essential” Varroa treatments? Pflugfelder points out in this same report that because of the chemical treatment, the bees are not building a natural defence mechanism against Varroa and that may be the reason why bees are unable to build resistance against this mite.
Official bodies consider the Varroa mite as a major problem. We question whether this ‘great’ Varroa issue is indeed the real problem or whether it is actually symptomatic of our conventional beekeeping methods. Bee research provides interesting facts on this subject but is embroiled in contradictions (Swiss Bee Research). In addition, there is a huge scope for factors that are not yet understood. If the Varroa problem were to be ”solved“ scientifically, there is no doubt that the next problem would still be awaiting the scientists.
Pflugfelder from the Swiss Centre for Bee Research makes contradicting statements in this same report. He states that it is probably impossible to eradicate this mite now that it has been introduced, or to prevent further spread. In 2012, he ordered several comprehensive field trials (one of which in the Bernese Seeland) during which he required beekeepers to use forced treatments of formic and oxalic acid. The side effects of these treatments were investigated and published by Gregorc (2003). The treatment is supposed to reduce the number of Varroa mites, which, according to Pflugfelder’s own statements, cannot be eradicated. The results of such imposed field trials with predictable treatments for the whole of Switzerland are highly controversial and certainly not sustainable. In addition, they prevent a natural and near-natural beekeeping method and thus any chance of the bee being able to adapt to natural conditions.
Researchers are investigating various alternatives to the use of acaricides. It appears that Varroa-resistant bees are being bred. Fungi could decimate the Varroa mites. Pheromones in the hive itself could have an impact on the Varroa mites to the point where the mites were no longer able to reproduce. Using drone brood as Varroa bait in order to control the Varroa population has also been considered. However, every approach outlined above entails several potential new dangers and side effects. In addition, none of these approaches are able to address the problem comprehensively, effectively and with reasonable effort.
Let’s look at this subject from a different perspective There are still natural colonies in Switzerland and all over Europe which can survive while hosting the Varroa mite. According to Fries (2005) an equilibrium between host and parasite has been established on the island of Gotland where the local bee population is beginning to recover following heavy colony losses. Seeley (2006) shows that between 1978 and 2002 the Apis mellifera population in the Arnot forest (USA) has remained constant despite the fact that during this time the Varroa mite had also settled in. Bee colonies have developed a so-called “resistance”. However, they will immediately succumb to the mite as soon as they are moved and are exposed to Varroa mites from artificially bred colonies. Seeley concludes that these results may not be due to the fact that the bees become resistant, instead the current productive beekeeping methods tend to breed for more aggressive Varroa and viruses than those encountered in wild living colonies. Seeley refers to several studies that indicate that a balanced equilibrium between host and parasite is especially noticeable in naturally held or near-naturally held colonies. J.J. Bull and P. Ewald suggested that there is a higher virulence of viruses and parasites with horizontal transmission (increase through artificial forcing of nucs) than in vertical transmission (reproduction through natural swarming of bees). A parasite eradicating its hosts would constitute an abnormal and pointless strategy, given that such behaviour would be detrimental in the long term.
As a result of high colony losses due to Varroa, Pflugfelder states that scientists were not in a position to wait for nature to naturally find an equilibrium and were placed under tremendous “pressure” to “rescue” the honey bee. This led to the development of highly effective Varroacides, chemical substances, which killed off the mites quickly and effectively. “Unfortunately” first resistances appeared to be occurring after ten years which resulted in a dramatic decline of the bee. Pflugfelder does not mention the side effects of these treatments or their residues in wax, honey and pollen. Nor does he mention the doubtful sustainability of such approaches. Pflugfelder does admit that the original aim of solving the Varroa mite problem has not been achieved. What is even more frightening is his unequivocal statement that currently there is no safe, effective and easily applicable measure in sight - despite the fact that the entire Swiss beekeeping community is relying on the results of the Swiss Centre for Bee Research and waiting for new policies and recommendations on this matter. What if the entire “big” problem with Varroa had been completely home-made through current methods of beekeeping? It is a fact that the common approaches and practices are simply treating the symptoms! Equally, it is also a fact that we are weakening the bee‘s immune system by applying the recommended treatments and that we are, in effect, breeding a pure-breed Varroa supermite where only the strongest parasite can survive and multiply. It may be worth contemplating who else may have a vested interest in upholding the Varroa issue. Probably the agricultural chemical companies..?
Pflugfelder (2012) and many other experts claim that the survival rate of untreated sample test colonies does not exceed 2-3 years. The results of a test carried out by Dettli (2009) in Switzerland revealed that 7 out of 10 untreated colonies survived the first winter. Out of these 7, 3 colonies survived the second winter. 1 colony out of 3 survived the third winter, resulting thus in an average 8
