Peter, cited the "Apis" Newsletter:
> Dr. Spivak said... "Bees are certified 'junkies' and
> beekeepers have become their 'pushers'."
and Peter asked:
> Seeing where these comments were coming from -
> is it not a trifle rich to hammer into beekeepers
> who are now reacting to new diagnostic techniques...
The line was intended to be "rich". That was her "sound bite".
Her "headline". Blame TV news for making everyone think that
complex ideas need to be distilled down to bumper-sticker
length phrases. When one reads on, and looks at what she said
beekeepers should do, much of what she said was on target.
Some of it was "preaching to the choir". But with all due
disrespect, some of what she was quoted as saying strikes me
as verging on pure fantasy. "Apis" quotes her thusly:
1. Stop right now any preventative feeding of antibiotics.
2. Cull combs to remove AFB spores and pesticide/antibiotic
residues.
3. Leave mites in colonies; do not try to eliminate them all;
in some cases bees can sustain 10% to 15% infestation with
little harm.
4. Pesticides "pamper" bees; let them use their own innate
defense mechanisms. Use selective breeding to give bees
tools to work with and then leave them on their own. This
includes incorporating hygienic behavior, SMR and
characteristics of other stocks (Russians).
5. Use IPM now! This means thinking before acting; apply
pesticides only as a last resort. Use soft chemicals
when possible. Again, leave mites in the colony so the
bees have a long- term fighting chance on their own.
My perspectives on her points are:
(1) I agree completely. In this specific regard, beekeepers
ARE "drug pushers". With better diagnostic tools, perhaps
beekeepers will treat with certainty of knowledge rather
than with nothing more than blind fear or from blind habit.
(2) Also agree. It's amazing how few beekeepers have any
sort of frame age-tracking system in place, and the
result is that combs are in service far too long.
(3) All control approaches appear to leave SOME mites,
which is the essential reason why resistance crops up.
If there was a control approach that could eradicate
100% of mites at time of application, I'd love to see it.
I also question the prudence of the 10% to 15% estimate
in light of the mite/virus work done recently in
Beltsville by the USDA, but I fear that "10% to 15%"
is merely the actual percentage of mites left alive
by the currently-used treatments.
(4) If anyone's bees had any "innate defense mechanisms"
we would have found "survivor colonies" and bred from
them by now. My take on "hygienic", "SMR", and
"Russian" bees is that they have failed to live up to
the hopes of beekeepers in regard to disease/pest
resistance, and have each presented quirks that have
been serious problems in the field. If merely keeping
my bees alive is "pampering" them, then I intend to
continue "pampering". I know that knocking down varroa
early and often keeps my colonies alive. I'm not
interested in doing my own "selective breeding". Those
who do nothing else are better at it than me, and to
date, they have offered no tangible improvement that
would allow me to cease using a miticide.
(5) I agree, but I >>MIGHT<< be able to legally use a "soft"
chemical (Api-Life) for the first time this fall, so I'm
not sure why she was not preaching in the direction of the
US EPA and FDA rather than beekeepers. Honey is food, so
I am a strict observer of both the letter and the spirit
of the laws and regulations, which to date, have not
endorsed the general use of ANY "soft" chemicals in the USA.
(5a) Regardless, IPM is a valid approach even if one uses short-
range tactical nuclear weapons as one's response to a
detection of pests or disease above the economic threshold.
One should not confuse "IPM" with the choice of pesticides,
and the phrase "last resort" has no business in any
description of "IPM". One does not have a "last resort" in
IPM. One only has well-thought-out and appropriate responses
that one implements with the glacial calm and aplomb of
a baccarat player saying "banco".
But the above are merely my views. Dr. Marla Spivak was
awarded the "James I. Hambleton Award" for being outstanding
in her field, which is why she gave the speech. I'm just
another anonymous beekeeper. If anyone was to say that I was
"outstanding in my field", it would be only because I really
>>WAS<< out standing in my field at the time. :)
jim
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|