There is currently quite a bit of attention for a movement within beekeeping called ‘Darwinian beekeeping’, or also ‘natural’ or ‘apicentric’ beekeeping. This is mainly based on an article by Dr. Tom Seeley in the American Bee Journal and his book ‘The Lives of Bees’.
What exactly is Darwinian beekeeping?
Seeley does not give a precise definition of Darwinian beekeeping, as far as I know. But it boils down to keeping colonies in a way that closely resembles how bee colonies live in the wild, and where the needs of the colony are put before those of the beekeeper. In his view, this leads to a less stressful and healthier existence for the colonies. He makes a number of suggestions that the beekeeper can follow to a greater or lesser extent in order to come closer to Darwinian beekeeping. Some points seem more important than others.
Beekeeping is a unique form of animal husbandry, in which the honeybee is somewhere between wild and domesticated. Henk van der Scheer argues in his article ‘Wild or domestic bees?’ (see Bijenhouden 2020-5) that we should first consider the bee as a wild animal. However, formally the honeybee is classified as a ‘farm animal’.
No one will deny that there are enormous differences between the living conditions of feral and managed bee colonies. Beekeepers change these living conditions to increase the productivity of their bee colonies. But it is beyond dispute that this also has negative consequences, just like with other forms of intensive livestock farming.
Seeley describes 21 differences in living conditions between feral and managed bees. According to him, these differences often work to the disadvantage of managed bees, leading to stress. It seems to me that it is not so easy to prove that unnatural interventions such as swarm prevention or honey harvesting lead to long-term stress in bees. Combating Varroa certainly does, but the presence of many Varroa in a colony will also have a stressful effect.
Many of Seeley’s findings are based on his observations of bee colonies in Arnot Forest, a nature reserve inear Ithaca, New York State. We should keep in mind that this situation is very different from the Netherlands.
Darwinian beekeeping has something Arcadian about it. Many of us beekeepers would like to practise a form of beekeeping that respects the life of the bees as much as possible. But at the same time, we also want to profit from the results of the diligence of these animals. However pristine beekeeping might be, there are things we cannot ignore: modern agricultural methods, the need for pollination of crops for food security, the consequences of urbanisation, the loss of quality and quantity of forage, and the introduction of diseases and pests.
Darwinian beekeeping has elements that are designed to let evolution do its work. But there is a big difference between evolution by natural selection – a process that takes thousands of years – and dealing with a sudden selection factor: Varroa, Tropilaelaps, small hive beetle, Asian hornet, to name but a few.
Differences between feral and managed bee colonies
Seeley describes 21 differences and offers possible solutions to mitigate the negative effects of the differences for managed bees. In the following I list the most interesting ones.
Colonies are either genetically adapted to the location or not
Traveling with bee colonies will certainly be disadvantageous for this, since the bees are often not adapted to the new situation. But perhaps the situation is less extreme in our country than in the US, where queens bred in Hawaii are shipped throughout the US. Working with bees that are adapted to local conditions is not feasible if new genes are constantly being introduced via ‘foreign’ queens.
Feral colonies are far apart and managed colonies are close together in apiaries
Who is in a position to spread out their colonies as much as in nature in Arnot Forest, at a distance of 800 m or more? We have to accept that managed colonies are closer together than in nature. If they were far apart, it would be quite a walk from one colony to the next, assuming we had that space. But 30-50 m is also nice, says Seeley. Even this distance seems to me often not easy to achieve in the Dutch situation.
Seeley found a lower fertilisation percentage of young queens in colonies that were close together, most likely as a result of young queens re-entering the wrong hive after a nuptial flight. There were also more Varroa mites in the colonies that were close together. This was only a small experiment, however. It is clear that colonies that are far apart are less affected by bees entering the wrong hive and robbery, two factors that are related to the transmission of mites and, therefore, of viruses. By the way, we should not overestimate the influence of migrating bees on the spread of Varroa. See Randy Oliver’s Scientific Beekeeping website for his series of articles on bee drift and robbery and Varroa infestation.
The size of the natural nesting space
It is certainly true that managed bees are often kept in unnaturally large spaces to obtain greater productivity: a smaller living space inevitably leads to more swarming and therefore loss of yield. Swarming is good for the bees, but bad for the beekeeper. Larger spaces lead to fewer swarms, which in fact results in less selection for vitality, where vitality should be seen as the ability to produce offspring. Nowadays, allowing swarms to fly off is hardly socially acceptable anymore, whether we beekeepers think this is right or not. However, the effect of swarming can be imitated by creating an artificial brood-free period. There are many methods for this.
Apart from that, few swarms will survive in nature. In Arnot Forest, about 1 in 5 primary swarms survives the first winter and about 1 in 10 of the secondary casts. Firstly, the swarms face a huge challenge to gather their winter supplies, but also, and probably more importantly, most will perish as a result of Varroa infestation.
On the other hand, large colonies that have not swarmed will also harbour more Varroa. A difficult decision, therefore, for the beekeeper, whether to allow the colonies to swarm or to prevent them from doing so. It seems as if Seeley rules out any form of swarm control. The obvious advantage is that swarming removes about 35% of the mite burden from the mother colony and that the forced interruption of brooding further decimates the remaining mites. But to house colonies in one brood chamber and one honey chamber, as he proposes, is certainly little and leads to increased swarming behaviour.
The thickness of the nest wall is important
You can actually compare a wooden beehive with a fallen hollow tree. But the wall of a hollow tree is much thicker, which makes the heat management much more stable than in our hives. Although hives made of plastic have considerably better insulation than wooden ones, that does not mean that they completely emulate the hollow tree trunk.
It is a tricky point: we cannot make hives with walls as thick as those of tree trunks. We can if we would use hollow tree trunks themselves, but that would cost a lot of trees. The use of plastic for hives is undoubtedly better in terms of energy. However, if you use wooden hives, the colony can also survive perfectly well: the bees only consume more food to keep warm. Also, I could imagine that a plastic hive has a higher ecological footprint than a wooden hive.
To cut drone comb or not?
The last word has not yet been said on this. Evolutionarily speaking, it is a kind of castration. It is detrimental to colonies that are healthy and strong enough to raise drones, because they actually deserve to reproduce. But apparently cutting away drone comb significantly reduces Varroa pressure. See also the article on cutting drone brood in the construction frame by Mari van Iersel in Bijenhouden 2017-6. He found that cutting drone brood three times resulted in slightly less worker brood being produced, but this had hardly any effect on the honey yield. When cutting drone comb three times, he concluded that there was a reduction of 35-50%. Bijen@wur, in the brochure ‘Effectieve bestrijding van Varroa’ (Effective Varroa Control), estimated 20-30%.
Cutting drone comb is not ethical in the eyes of some. But that also applies to the other extreme: letting an entire bee colony die due to a lack of appropriate care. By not cutting drone comb in vital colonies, but in less vital ones, one contributes at least – a tiny bit – to selection in the direction of more vital colonies. By allowing 10-20% drone brood in a colony, one can exert some genetic influence on the environment. And it is good for the harmony in a colony.
But, as mentioned, cutting drone comb significantly reduces the Varroa pressure, so if you do not cut, your colony is at greater risk. And if the Varroa pressure is low, you could also leave the drone comb in place (see ‘Darrenraat, inhangen of toch niet?’ (‘Inserting drone comb or not?’ by Mari van Iersel in Bijenhouden 2014-2). But actually, you should requeen less vital colonies as soon as possible.
Migrating bees or not?
The aim of not migrating colonies is to prevent disruption of brood care, heat regulation and foraging behaviour. Well, if you accept that less honey will be coming in, this is a good idea. On the other hand, Seeley mentions the importance of pollination (50% worldwide by honey bees), but at the same time speaks out against travelling with the bees. I cannot reconcile these kinds of things. Incidentally, I suspect that many Dutch beekeepers do not migrate their colonies these days.
Seeley also recommends placing hives as far away as possible from flowers with pesticides. This is not always easy in the Dutch situation. Incidentally, pesticide damage to bee colonies is very rare these days.
He also suggests placing hives preferably in places that are surrounded by nature reserves. This recommendation seems to apply mainly in the American context. And Staatsbosbeheer does not make this any easier for us Dutch beekeepers…
Seeley prescribes harvesting as little honey and pollen as possible. This is a defensible choice, but certainly not one that everyone will embrace, even though most beekeepers will leave the necessary supplies for the bees when harvesting. Complete honey extraction from a colony seems to me to be a rarity among beekeepers these days.
Inspecting colonies: never or often?
Every bee book states that you should only open a colony if it is really necessary. But how bad is this really? It has been sufficiently proven that the heat regulation by the colony is disrupted for a number of hours. It was found that during that period the collection of bees is also negatively influenced. On the other hand: if you do not inspect, you do not know what is going on inside.
To treat or not to treat against diseases
By combating diseases, we disrupt the ‘arms race’ between host and pathogen and therefore evolution. Beekeepers have undoubtedly weakened natural selection for disease resistance. On the other hand, we should not forget that evolution is unpredictable and essentially directionless. Perhaps we should not expect too much from just letting everything take its course.
Seeley also points out that acaricides and antibiotics can influence the microbiome of the colony. This may be more important than many beekeepers think. According to Blacquière (2015), the DNA of the queen and drones together represent only 10% of the hereditary information in a bee colony. And perhaps 90% is provided by the parasites, yeasts, bacteria, archaea, fungi and viruses in that colony, the microbiome. All of these together have a major influence on what happens in a bee colony.
The most sensitive point in this entire list concerns Seeley’s suggestion not to combat Varroa (anymore?!). According to him, this leads to natural selection. But I think that would only be the case if all beekeepers in the wide area were to implement the same policy, because otherwise genetic pollution would occur again and again.
Seeley also proposes to kill all colonies with too much Varroa in order to avoid the ‘mite bomb’ effect. It doesn’t have to be that drastic: quickly re-queen and until then not allowing drones to be produced. But you can also treat colonies that you exclude from reproduction against Varroa. That’s more humane. In all honesty, Seeley does suggest re-queening with resistant or tolerant material. But how many beekeepers have access to such material?
Keuze van de larve(n) voorbestemd om koningin te worden
This is of course not taken into account by our selection of larvae for queen breeding. See also the article ‘Zeldzame koninklijke bijenfamilies’ (‘Rare royal bee families’) by Pim Brascamp in Bijenhouden 2019-2. It could also be that the bees select larvae based on the health of the larva. Incidentally, the phenomenon (found by Moritz) only applied to queen cells.
According to Seeley, the expansion of the number of colonies should preferably be done by catching swarms or making splits containing brood from strong colonies, whereby the bees themselves can select the royal larva. The latter is certainly feasible, the former, as mentioned, much less so.
Fertilisation of the queen
Competition between drones during nuptial flights of the young queen is essential. Artificial insemination takes little account of this, even though attempts are made to use only the most fertile drones. The choice of the young queen between drones at fertilisation stations is also relatively limited.
Is Darwinian beekeeping feasible and desirable?
To make his point, Seeley does present things in black and white, but that may be necessary if you want to convince your audience: “As someone who has devoted his scientific career to investigating the marvellous inner workings of honey bee colonies, it saddens me to see how profoundly -and ever increasingly- conventional beekeeping disrupts and endangers the lives of colonies.” It is a bit too simplistic to lump all ‘conventional’ beekeepers together as money-grabbers who mercilessly exploit the poor honeybee without regard for the consequences. Perhaps he wrote all this mainly with the way American commercial beekeepers operate in mind – often not exactly subtle.
If you are a beekeeper who is primarily interested in the bee colony as a wonderful life form, it is certainly feasible to incorporate some of these points into your management. Much of what Seeley recommends sounds like useful and sound advice. But it does not really serve the farmer in the beekeeping business. All in all, an evolutionary view of beekeeping will certainly lead to a better understanding of the challenges our bees face, and thus improve our beekeeping practices and the enjoyment we derive from it.
References:
Blacquière, T., 2015. Weerbare bij: Verkenning van initiatieven en wetenschappelijke literatuur over natuurlijke afweer van bijenvolken tegen ziekten en plagen. Rapportage 2015, Project BO-20-003-023 Min EZ.
Seeley, T., 2017. Darwinian beekeeping: An evolutionary approach to apiculture. American Bee Journal 157(3):277-282.
Seeley, Thomas D., 2019. The Lives of Bees: The Untold Story of the Honey Bee in the Wild. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-16676-6.
Wild Colonies vs. Managed Colonies (https://www.naturalbeekeepingtrust.org/darwinian-beekeeping).
Scientific Beekeeping – Randy Oliver: A Study on Bee Drift and Mite Immigration
https://scientificbeekeeping.com/a-study-on-bee-drift-and-mite-immigration-part-1/.