BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bob Harrison <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 5 Jul 2003 23:25:09 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (71 lines)
Roger asked:
It is really strange that you are having these problems if your hives are
"coumaphos free".  Have you ever used it to treat your hives?

I never said I had not used checkmite. I was one of the first to use
checkmite in Missouri (check archives). I pushed to get the section 18 which
came a year late in my opinion. Many of my friends (which I won't name) did
not think we needed the section 18 till they found fluvalinate resistant
varroa also.

Roger said:
 It takes about six years to approach low levels after one use.

Can you point me to any research to support the above as coumaphos levels in
wax has been lower than anticapated by the USDA when coumaphos was given the
section 18 ( Jeff Pettis USDA). Lots of comb has been tested in many areas
of the U.S.

From what I have been told by the best researchers in the U.S. they are
finding coumaphos in wax (and any other chemical which has ever been used
plus many evironmental contaminants due to the new testing equipment the
USDA bee labs have bought recently)) but there is at presant time no concern
until the level reaches a certain percent (Jeff Pettis USDA).

The level has been reached in cases in which illegal methods have been used.
Most wax in the U.S. in brood comb has fallen short of the amount considered
to effect hive performance.

I will stick with the experts at the USDA as those people have got the best
track record in my book.

Roger said:
 I have always put these strange conditions in hives (by this is I mean the
inability to raise queens) down to an excess of chemical residues within the
hive.

As I said in a prior post. The problem was noticed and discussed at bee
conventions before either tracheal or varroa mite entered the U.S. and
chemicals were ever used and the problem is still around.Genetics was the
decision on the matter by the experts back then. Surely you can see genetics
could be the problem? Other than the Buckfast bee our imports were stopped
in the 20's (legal that is).

Roger asked:
 Which strain of bees are you using?

I believe I have used every strain of bee ever sold in the U.S. at one time
or the other. Some strains  did better than others in regards to requeening
after swarming which lends to the genetics hypothesis.

The problem never got worse after varroa arrived (and chemical use began) in
my opinion but maybe others on the list which have observed the problem will
share their stories?

The  main strains I am using now are Italians ( from California and the best
honey producers of any bee I ever used but do have problems with tracheal
mites) , Italian /carniolan cross out of Texas (which impressed Ohio Queen
breeders so much they went and got queens to work into their breeding
program I was told) and pure bred Russian queens bred to Russian drones
(California).

What chemicals have you used Roger and what types of problems have you
observed which you believe are caused by your use of a chemical to treat
varroa? Queen and brood problems?

Bob

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ATOM RSS1 RSS2