Comparative Performance of Two Mite-Resistant Stocks of Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Alabama Beekeeping Operations

Abstract

The utility of USDA-developed Russian and varroa sensitive hygiene (VSH) honey bees, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), was compared with that of locally produced, commercial Italian bees during 2004-2006 in beekeeping operations in Alabama, USA. Infestations of varroa mites, Varroa destructor Anderson & Truman (Acari: Varroidae), were measured twice each year, and colonies that reached established economic treatment thresholds (one mite per 100 adult bees in late winter; 5-10 mites per 100 adult bees in late summer) were treated with acaricides. Infestations of tracheal mites, Acarapis woodi (Rennie) (Acari: Tarsonemidae), were measured autumn and compared with a treatment threshold of 20% mite prevalence. Honey production was measured in 2005 and 2006 for colonies that retained original test queens. Throughout the three seasons of measurement, resistant stocks required less treatment against parasitic mites than the Italian stock. The total percentages of colonies needing treatment against varroa mites were 12% of VSH, 24% of Russian, and 40% of Italian. The total percentages requiring treatment against tracheal mites were 1% of Russian, 8% of VSH and 12% of Italian. The average honey yield of Russian and VSH colonies was comparable with that of Italian colonies each year. Beekeepers did not report any significant behavioral problems with the resistant stocks. These stocks thus have good potential for use in nonmigratory beekeeping operations in the southeastern United States.

Advances and perspectives in selecting resistance traits against the parasitic mite Varroa destructor in honey bees

“…Generalization from observations made at the scale of brood cells or adult honey bees to colony phenotype may also be unwarranted. Although high MNR would be expected to decrease colony infestation level, this link was not observed in all populations [170][171][172]. However, generalization from cell to colony appears warranted in the case of uncapping-recapping, which does not have a direct impact on mite reproduction at the cell level but is associated with colony survival in various populations [72,73] and thus considered a valuable proxy to identify resistance against V. destructor [73].…”

Varroa management in small bites

“…Assuming 1000 mites at the beginning of late winter when treatment is recommended for a hive of 10 000 bees (Ward et al. 2008), we can determine the number of chelifers required to keep this population in check through its exponential growth phase.…”

“…Assuming 1000 mites at the beginning of late winter when treatment is recommended for a hive of 10 000 bees (Ward et al 2008), we can determine the number of chelifers required to keep this population in check through its exponential growth phase. Using a conservative rate of two mites consumed per day (1-9 observed daily range), the varroa model predicts that 25 chelifers per hive may be capable of eliminating the exponential mite population increase by consuming the otherwise 5% daily increase in mite numbers (fig.…”

Three Decades of Selecting Honey Bees that Survive Infestations by the Parasitic Mite <em>Varroa destructor</em>: Outcomes, Limitations and Strategy

“…The resulting lineage was made available to beekeepers across the USA (www.russianbreeder.org). Successive generations of offspring colonies did exhibit the ability to keep V. destructor populations at lower levels than the controls (de Guzman et al, 2007;de Guzman et al, 2019;Rinderer et al, 2001a;Tarpy et al, 2007), and they also required fewer varroacide treatments (Ward et al, 2008). In Canada, colonies with partial Russian ancestry were left untreated in a survival experiment (Robertson et al, 2014).…”