In message <[log in to unmask]>, Bob
Harrison <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Without reinfestation, an autumn
>> figure of 200 would not need treatment in the following year.
>(according to the varroa calculator)
>
>If you are saying a sticky board reading of 200 varroa in September does not
>need treatment I see this figure way to high for an area with severe winter.
>I have heard figures as high as 160 and feel 160 might be too high for an
>area in which the bees are confined for a long over winter period.
No, I meant an estimated 200 mites in the hive. That would imply about 2
per day on the tray or sticky board at that particular time! In the
brood rearing time, about 80 per day would be the threshold. BTW the
figure of 2500 total mite load comes from the observation that after the
cessation of brood rearing, colonies with 2500 mites survived the
winter. Above this figure, the survival dropped as the mite load
increased. With an early brood rearing cycle, this might need to be
lowered if spring losses were to be avoided.
>I appriciate the amount of work Steve put in his calculator. In my opinion
>there is simply to many varibles between each hive for a one method fits
>all. The calculator is a place for the novice to start and learn from. Steve
>based his calculator on what he thinks he saw from his research in his part
>of the world .
I am not really talking about the calculator. I am reading graphs which
came out of his research. I have them in front of me.
>His findings *will not * work in mine. I hate to say these thinks but you
>and I have discussed many beekeeping issues before and you know which
>buttons to push James to get a response.
Now you tell me! No pushing buttons intended at all. Just a fair
response to a point made. I did not challenge your assertion that there
was no research on the point! In any case, we are at pains to mention
from time to time that the work was done in the UK with typical UK bees.
However, apart from the threshold problem of virus susceptibility,
hygienic factor removal of mites and build up according the viability of
varroa reproduction in the strain of bees, and seasonal brood rearing
according to race/strain, mite build up is determined by the mites not
the bees. In other words, during the brood rearing time, X varroa will
produce X x reproduction factor per generation, which has the same
duration here as there. So we have a lot in common. Maybe we are talking
at cross purposes some of the time - I have noticed this in other posts.
>Thanks to Steve for his work on the varroa calculator. Another beekeeping
>tool but only as good as the person using the tool.
>
>James wrote:
> We do have the problem that if we treat too soon, we may not see
>> the bees sudden response to high levels by "chewing out" larvae and
>> grooming off the adults.
>
>As I said in a post on Bee-L a couple years ago about this phenonomon that
>most hives will "chew out" larvae and groom to one degree or another BUT
>only (in my opinion) when the varroa load really gets climbing. Unlike some
>of my fellow beekeepers and researchers I have never seen this phenonomon as
>the answer for varroa. Certainly a important trait worth selecting for
>(breeder queen) in Dee Lusbys type of non chemical type of beekeeping.
Sorry but there was a recent post showing a sudden drop in mite count.
IMHO this is a good indicator for breeding - not the immediate answer,
but at least a good start. Please remember John Dews and his Austrian
inspiration find mite leg snipping effective and have bred this or are
breeding this into bees. It does appear to trigger off at some critical
level, which requires the breeder to maintain a high but non-lethal mite
level so as to notice the behaviour.
>Given that substances such as thymol help the
>> bees immune system perhaps this allows a higher threshold?
>
>I noticed you did not say *might*. Any proof from research Thymol is a help
>for the tiny bees delicate immune system or another theory from *across the
>pond* .
Perhaps and a question mark were intended as such - a question posed - a
speculation of mine - not a theory. I am asking if there is any evidence
anywhere. I have not seen any. But its beneficial effect has been
claimed.
I am not going to let the tone of the comment "another theory from
*across the pond*" push my buttons!!
>> I am lurching towards an IPM system with selection and breeding from
>> bees that snip mite legs.
>
>James you are not *lurching* but in my opinion moving forward steadily. Our
>friend Murray (lurker lately) is probabbly better to guide you than me for
>your area of the world. I use chemicals when I see no other way. I would
>love to get off the chemical treadmill but for now I see no other way. Maybe
>you, Dee and others will find the solution .
I am following John Dews.
>James wrote:
> I left 4 colonies untreated last winter.
This was the lurching part - no tray to assess the mite level due to
sizing differences in the design and no "round tuits" left.
>Most hives will survive two years *if* the intitial varroa load is not too
>high.
Load not assessed. Just no dwv at treatment time (late) plus the
potential for continuous monitoring. I was working with the hypothesis
that treatment the previous year was effective and this was one of the
"most hives will survive" group, but subject to confirmation by the
monitoring which I had intended to carry out after making the trays.
>James wrote:
>> from the centre of the brood nest showed 1 bee with deformed wings and a
>> dozen or so smaller, grey looking, *very* slow moving bees
>
>Using *leave alone* methods I always find a few bees with k wings.
No K-wings at all. Grey, small and still, wings OK. I was unhappy to see
this. It is the first time I have seen it.
--
James Kilty
|
