Bill said:
> I have many emails in my files from those who lost hives to FGMO
I think it would be more fair to say "in spite of using FGMO"
rather than "to FGMO". FGMO clearly does not directly kill bees.
> but were afraid to post about their losses for fear of the standard comment-
> you did not do it right (even under supervision!)- as well as retribution.
While it is important to note that "repeatability" and
"consistent results" are keys to digging "gems of science"
from the "mud of bogus voodoo", I think it is unfair to echo
misguided paranoia about "retribution".
No one has attempted to make a dime from FGMO. Many people have
invested time, effort, and some money in trying to spread the
word about FGMO without any thought of personal gain. There is
no possible "retribution", other than the potential for having
"help" offered by people who are convinced that the treatment is
working for them. (Yes, this might result in some embarrassment,
but let's admit that someone trying to help is not being mean,
even if their style might be abrasive, and their manners minimal.)
But lets step back from FGMO, and look at the broader view.
Let's look at the BEEKEEPERS who post messages, give talks to their
fellow beekeepers at local meetings, and otherwise take pains to
"promote" things that I choose to call "alternative bee treatments".
If anyone wonders why someone would be motivated to so
enthusiastically support something that they themselves
may not (yet) understand, may not have the skills to
properly implement, or may not even have the interest,
skills, or time to properly track success/failure, the
reason is simple:
Most of the "alternative treatments"
are very seductive!
By "seductive", I mean that they hold great promise:
a) They hold the promise of being a "silver bullet",
a single approach that can "fix" the problem.
b) They hold the promise of being "non-chemical", "non-poison",
and thereby ecologically superior to chemical approaches.
c) Many hold the promise of being far cheaper than the
"mainstream" approaches.
d) Nearly all of the alternatives promise to pose less risk
of contamination to honey, wax, brood comb, etc.
Varroa can re-infest one's hives from other nearby beekeeper's
hives, so it is nothing more than highly enlightened self-interest
that prompts some of the advocacy behind some treatments.
The net result is a "meme", a sort of a computer virus that spreads
between people's minds. The "program code" that makes up the meme
is something like this:
1) You want to be safe from varroa.
2) You cannot truly be "safe" until everyone is safe.
Reinfestation implies that even one beekeeper using
a shoddy approach can reinfest everyone else nearby.
3) Making the world safer for beekeeping would be nice.
4) Love thy neighbor.
With such a simple set of instructions, it is no wonder that we have
a wide range of alternative treatments floating around in the limbo of
anecdotal reports, with few, if any of them blessed by the priests and
acolytes of Science with a capital "S". (I am not being insulting here,
as I freely admit that I am a mere altar boy in the cathedral of Science,
"Our Lady Of Perpetual Pendantism".)
Beekeepers by nature are an inventive bunch, and it is only natural
that something that can kill one's colonies would become the subject
of multiple approaches, some good, some terrible.
It is my personal view that the chemical approaches are just as
misleadingly seductive as the alternative approaches!
The downside risk of the chemicals are the twin demons of resistant
varroa and contamination. These downsides are much more dangerous
than the downside of an "alternative" treatment being merely less
effective in killing varroa.
My point is that I view some of the alternatives as valid munitions
for my "anti-varroa weapons locker". Excuse the "weapons systems"
jargon here, but like the old joke says:
The difference between Electrical and Civil Engineers
is that Electrical Engineers design weapons systems,
while Civil Engineers design the targets!
Anyway, admit it - the alternatives don't have the impressive kill
ratios of the chemical strips, but they DO have the advantage of
being something that one can use to reduce varroa populations
in the middle of a nectar flow, don't they?
Some newly-emerging treatments that have the advantage of scientific
endorsement are CLEARLY "sidearms", in that the beekeeper is expected
to manually "aim" and "fire" at each frame in a hive, one at a time.
(Good examples are the Sucrose Octanate and powdered sugar.)
Some of the alternative treatments are "semi-auto" or "full-auto"
weapons, in that treating a hive is a one-step process, but one
still is armed with a hand-held weapon (FGMO, Formic Acid, Acetic
Acid, Oxalic Acid...) Sadly, the need for repeat treatments has
become clear for nearly all of the above, and most of them need to
be used only under certain temperature/humidity conditions to get
good kill ratios.
The only "bombs" we have are the chemical strips. Drop a bomb,
walk away, and varroa die. But expect some collateral damage!
Anyone who watched the news during the first or the current
Gulf War has heard the phrase "bomb damage assessment" or "BDA".
The use of these terms means that the military knows and freely
admits something that beekeepers just can't seem to grok:
Nothing short of a nuclear weapon
kills EVERYTHING in the target area!
Even after dropping a "daisy cutter" or launching a "smart bomb",
BDAs are still done to decide if the target has been destroyed,
or if another bomb needs to be dropped.
So, what's the point?
My point is that IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER WHAT TREATMENT YOU USE
as long as you track the actual results using sticky boards,
sugar rolls, ether rolls, whatever, and stand ready to attack
again, perhaps with a weapon more appropriate to the situation
than the one you just used.
If you are using a treatment that is "softer" but less effective,
this is a choice that has much in common with the choices being
made by many of the more ecologically responsible farmers and gardeners.
(It should be noted that losing one tomato to pests is much less
an emotional and financial blow than losing a hive.)
These softer approaches are all useless without some form of
"IPM", meaning some sort of metric by which one measure's one's
success in keeping pests/diseases below the oft-fabled but
seldom clearly defined "economic threshold".
IPM means measuring.
One cannot control that which they do not measure.
If one measures, one has the choice of using whatever
weapon is appropriate, from ancient crossbow to Tomahawk missile.
It follows that I want a weapons locker that would make a Navy Seal envious.
I may want to use a "soft approach" to knock down low-level varroa
infestations early in the season, and use a "bomb" at the end of the
season when honey has been harvested and brood rearing is over.
I think that reducing varroa populations before and during the flows
will result in better harvests, simply because less bees are flying
around with large (to them) blood-sucking vampires attached to their
backs, and I think it should be obvious that this would have a
negative impact on both bee productivity and useful lifespan.
But there is no "silver bullet". You can't kill all the varroa in
a hive without also killing bees, larvae, and contaminating honey
and wax for the SAME EXACT REASON that you can't kill all the cats
in the world without "collateral damage" in the form of dead dogs
and dead children. (Please, no flames cat lovers - it is just an
example - I have 5 barn cats, and love each and every one.)
But, let me be very clear:
There is no one "solution".
There is no one easy "fix".
The price of honey is eternal vigilance.
Face reality, and move forward.
Maybe someday we will have Teenage Mutant Ninja Bees that can
use kung-fu on varroa, spit on tracheal mites, sneeze at AFB,
and take the wallets and watches from Small Hive Beetles, all
while producing bumper crops of honey and being easy to work.
Until then, I'm going to measure, track, and choose.
jim (A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse.
An optimist knows that they can.)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
