(we are discussing http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/files/drop.htm)
>Re the four individual charts:
I count six.
>Hive 1 (950 cumulative)--the treatments appeared to be effective, although
>even after three consecutive treatments of broodless colonies, there were
>still mites.
This is interesting. Since my hives are in the top box of three or four, the mites
have to drop down to the sticky board. Some get hung up and dislodged later.
Nonetheless, I don't imagine that all were killed.
This hive was on the small side and has been removed from my test.
>Hive 2 (3000 cumulative)--the treatments were considerably less effective.
Hmmm.
>Hive 3 (4400 cumulative)--treatments effective overall, but it took 5
>vaporizations, three while the colony was broodless!
Yes. There was a learning curve involved and also the hive geometry was not optimal
for even distribution using the methods we had at hand.
>Hive 4 (3300)--treatments less effective. One certainly couldn't count
>upon a single vaporization, especially if brood were present, at giving
>effective mite control.
True.
>Hive 5 (1100)--what the heck was that single high spike from? Treatments
>were effective.
We had a big temperature rise right then and I'm guessing that the cluster '
shifted and dislodged mites from an earlier kill. I recall looking at it at the
time and thinking, "Some grad students would probably smooth or throw
this out to avoid having to explain it". I didn't, but I did take a good look to
make sure it was real. That is exactly the sort of thing that could lead to a
breakthrough in understanding, but I'm not the guy to explain it. I'm just
the reporter.
>
>Hive 6 (1700)--again, treatments not particularly effective.
I don't have a control to compare it to. For that matter, what sticks out is
how variable this has been and it shows how inconsistent the methods
were. The major pointy is that the composite looks not too bad, but individual
hives and individual treatments are all over the map. Typical articles about
OA vapour don't show this.
>Bottom line, it still took 5 time-consuming treatments to scour out most of
>the mites, which surprises me, since three of the treatments were given
>during the broodless period.
As mentioned, the hive configuration and the methods were real-world and
not made up or glossed over.
I think it demonstrates why more beekeepers are not relying on OA vapour
as a primary control.
After looking closely at this, I think I can see ways to improve efficacy and
consistency, but that is not proven.
>Your average mite drop per hive post Dec 23 was 106 mites. Not counting
>the remaining living mites, that means that at least around a 0.5%
>infestation remained post Dec 23. If half the remaining mites at Dec 23
>are still alive, that would suggest a 1% remaining infestation (would sure
>help if you could do some alcohol washes for confirmation).
Big Problem, and maybe that is why this is not better outlined in literature.
We don't have any calibration or benchmark method for washes at this time
of year. Moreover, they are destructive and and I have my doubts as to
how to interpret them.
If I continue to monitor drops, I'm thinking that these things can be deduced
to some degree. I don't really care about how many mites there are, but
rather how they affect the hives and whether they build up in spring enough
to be a problem. Washes or counts of mites in brood may make sense once
the bees get further into spring.
>By comparison, in my own colonies, mite levels were lower than yours in the
>fall. I gave them a single oxalic dribble in November. In my tests for
>potential breeder queens in my own operation this spring, following four
>complete brood cycles, and with plenty of broodrearing, the average mite
>infestation rate was around 2% in the adult bees (range 0 - 8%).
I used drizzle in the past with good results until the fall before last.
>Comparison is difficult since you are using mite drop of dead mites,
>whereas I am using alcohol wash. You are blind as to the number of living
>mites, other than by extrapolation by the number dropping each day. I'm
>more interested in the number of live mites in my colony, rather than the
>number of dead.
Exactly. Time may tell more.
>How much time and expense did the 5 vaporizations involve?
Not much, but the hives were right here at home. (I detailed it all in the
diary. at the time for anyone with too much time on his/her hands).
I doubt, though, that I would want to do routine treatments on many hives
with the methods I used without quite a bit of refinement.
---
I moved this explanation to the end so that it does not seem that I am arguing.
I asked for criticism, will probably act on some or all of it, and am explaining why
I did things the way I did..
>May I make a few suggestions to make your page a bit more user friendly.
Thanks Randy. I appreciate all comments on the site and even more the
comments and criticisms on the procedures and data.
I'm still at the point where I have not decided how much more work to put
into illustrating this project since the response has been less than overwhelming,
other than the comments and input from a few who have followed it all the
way through and find it very relevant to understanding their own experience
with varroa and oxalic.
This is an experiment in total disclosure, in contrast to the typical study which
is presented when finished and leaves a person (me at least) guessing as to
what was done, why, when and how as well as what has been swept under the
carpet. My intent has to been to include the ideas of any who care to participate.
Hence the voluminous detail.
I think that the basic problem with the page is that I have too much on there to
understand in a quick glance no matter how I work on it.
In spite of the many graphics, there are only seven charts, actually and the
sequence of events and materials, etc. is summarized at the beginning.
>1. Label the axes of your charts.
I haven't figured out how without making the charts bigger than they are.
Once the first chart is understood and it is explained in the legend and
colour coded, the rest should be clear, since they are simply the six underlying
components of that chart in the same format. A log version of the same
chart is supplied as a parenthetical. Come to think of it, though, I had forgotten
that some people are colour blind.
>2. Use the same time scales in your text and in the charts. I have to take
>time to try to locate your treatment dates (e.g., Dec 23) on the x axis.
Again, if any time is taken to understand the table and the first chart, all the rest
follows (or I thought it should -- I'll have to check it) . The rest are simply
amplifications or breakouts of detail from those two things. Maybe I need to explain that.
>3. I'm able to figure out the colored triangles on the x axes of the
>charts as being treatments, but it would be helpful to label.
Same as above. maybe I should explain that the idea is to constantly refer
back to the chart with the treatment dates and the main composite chart.
I notice the chart has become unreadable as it grew larger and larger over
time. Hmmm.
All the charts after the table and the first chart are merely supporting detail
that would normally be left out.
>4. Do you have any reason to think that Apivar is an effective treatment
>in a winter cluster? The label doesn't mention temperature. I'm not sure
>whether there is enough movement of bees in the cluster to properly
>distribute the active ingredient.
That is something I wondered about and commented on in notes as the project
continued. Without finding any official material on that, it seemed that the strips
worked above freezing, but the action diminished as the cluster tightened
and was low or nil below freezing. Temperatures and drops are shown on the
appropriate chart. I'm reasonably satisfied that the Apivar was working most
if the time, but that there were not many mites to drop. Time will tell if there are
many dropping as weather improves.
>5. Number the charts so that we can refer to them by number.
They are mostly the same chart in different views and they are numbered in the
Excel file which I expected would be downloaded for any serious examination,
however I'll look at that on the summary page if I decide how to deal with the
images there. It may be that providing the summary images is confusing
would-be readers.
Again, thanks for the critique and I will appreciate any other comments that come
along as well as any suggestions as to whether I should bother to continuing to
publish these observations and whether they are useful.
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm
|
