Allen said, about "overwintering" Apistan strips:
> it was known *from the start* by scientists and anyone who would
> listen, that Apistan(r) resistance would develop with high probability
> somewhere --
But isn't interesting that we've yet to see menthol-resistant tracheal mites,
and yet to see "resistance" to Fumadil crop up even though both have been
in use for quite some time on life forms with much quicker life-cycles
than varroa mites?
Might it be that the subset of beekeepers who use these two (highly under-rated)
treatments are also the subset of beekeepers who tend to not only read and
follow label instructions, but use "treatments" only when there is an actual
need to treat?
Or is some form of magic at work in our beehives?
> What is not reasonable in the southern US, (and, yes, I have
> seen hives on the California/Mexico border with BOTH Apistan and
> coumophos strips in January) *may* be reasonable in Canadian regions
> where the bees retreat from the upper brood box for months, then return
> to raise brood in early spring.
Perhaps Canadian bees are more predictable than others in this regard, but I
submit that most beekeepers in most locations cannot predict if their bees will
"retreat" upwards or downwards within the hive, and suggest that there is just
as much chance that clustering will take place adjacent to the strips as not.
> I might also mention to anyone who has never run a commercial outfit or
> hired staff, that it is not at all uncommon to disassemble a hive and
> find a strip that has broken and/or slipped down (bad design) or simply
> been missed by staff when removing strips. It is just a fact of life
> that nothing like this is cut and dried.
One would expect that having a "commercial outfit" would give one the financial
incentive to strive for excellence in these areas rather than be used an excuse
for sloppy practices. Lots of businesses hire staff, most hire folks with less skills
and smarts than are required to work in an apiary, but the majority of them equip
their staffs with checks and balances that are designed to expect, account for,
and avoid human error.
To me, those Apistan strips are "dollar bills", and I want to insure that they are
used wisely, so they are tracked with care, just like money. They ARE money,
and must be "invested" wisely. Medications have "leverage", and as many people
who had margin accounts found out recently, "leverage" can work for you, or
against you.
Perhaps the "fact of life" is that a lack of metrics and cross-checks are a risky way
to run any business, large or small. (Obvious suggestions would be thumbtacks or
staple guns to keep the strips in place, and simply counting hives versus strips in
hand before leaving an apiary. It's not "ISO-9001", but it's a step in the right direction.)
> I am not advocating this leaving strips in over winter, since I know a
> better and more effective time to apply the strips, but I have heard the
> practice considered reasonable by persons who hold great respect in our
> industry.
A rational observer would be forced to rethink his choice of role-models.
Do these respected folks also think that stop signs only apply to other people?
> In fact, some respectable research has recently (is currently?)
> been taking place on this very practice.
There is also research taking place on the effects of anthrax on
mammals, but this does not imply that the researchers think that
its a good idea to expose mammals to anthrax.
> The practice discussed may still be inadvisable, but we need to
> consider it levelly
If we agree that it is "inadvisable", what would the outcome be of
additional "consideration"? What changed to prompt such reconsideration?
> Things have changed, and will continue to change.
But what specifically changed that might have impact on the issue at hand?
As far as I know, the chemical is the same, the bees have not changed, and
the mites have become resistant only in a few specific places. If mites were
becoming generally resistant everywhere, I might agree that something had
"changed".
But they haven't.
So I don't.
> We need to stay on top of new ways of thinking.
While "new ways of thinking" are great, some of them are simply wrong.
If they are wrong, they need to be quickly identified as such, so as to
not confuse novices who might otherwise be misled.
But ignoring label instructions on pesticides and/or bee medications is
not a "new way of thinking", it is an old way of not thinking at all.
> These matters are never settled forever.
Relativism is the first step to putting superstition on an equal footing with science.
If changes are considered prudent by those who shoulder the burden of
responsibility in this area, they will be reflected on the label.
So, one chooses to follow the label, or one chooses to break the law - it's just that simple.
As we beekeepers are so fond of chanting when growers use pesticides,
"the label IS the law".
jim
|
