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:
Allen Dick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Thu, 11 Dec 1997 11:13:31 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (75 lines)
> I've been reading comments about unnecessary treatments of bees and
> the possible dangers. ... he had a story of a beekeeper who
> treated with lactic acid (referred to as a soft chemical in britain) and
> had massive bee loss of around a 100 colonies due to not getting it quite
> right. Clearly some of the technical problems to do with treatment are
> not as straightforward as they have been sometimes represented.
 
Good point.
 
In my experience talking candidly (over a beer -- maybe it was more than
one?) with many beekeepers from all over North America, the most striking
thing is how variable results from many of these treatments are.  Public
reports tend to emphasize the successes and gloss over the disasters.
 
Thet results that are actually achieved in many of these treatments in
actual apiaries are quite often different from what you are first told.
Moreover, results are often not checked.   For reasons of pride, many
beekeepers will conceal the horror stories, and only come out with the
whole truth after you reveal stupid mistakes you've personally made. You
have to go first, it seems.
 
FWIW The reason that Apistan(R) is considered such a standard treatment is
that when it fails it makes the news.  Such is the reliability and
idiot-proof nature of Apistan that if you can figure out where the cluster
is and manage to get the right number of strips into the correct position,
you are virtually assured of success -- no matter what else you do.
 
Not so with many other treatments that must be measured and mixed and
placed just so, then, perhaps adjusted in position, then replenished etc.
 
In such methods there are many reasons for spotty results, having to do
with individual variations in
1.) equipment -- such as, but not limited to:
* hive lid design and construction (insulated or not)
* use of inner covers,
* use of sacks, or carpet above the top brood chamber,
* floor design, entrance width & use of reducers,
* bee space above and below frames,
* depth of boxes,
* upper entrances and/or auger holes
* tightness (newness) of equipment
and
2.) individual practices which impact other significant factors such as:
* hive stores,
* populations,
* cluster position
* age of queens
* genetics
and
3.) other factors including:
* temperatures at time of treatment,
* time of year
* ambient humity
* purity (dilution) of product
* additional treatments or substances in hives
* the actual infestation levels at time of treatment
* additional diseases or pests affecting poulations
* history of the hive
and -- here's a big one:
4.) the beekeeper's understanding of the treatment instructions
 
Although there is great promise in some of these techniques, many are more
art than science and work for one person one place, and not for another
somewhere else.
 
There are also many ways to do damage to the bees or beekeeper when
dealing with some of these substances.
 
 Allen
---
* Want to cut the volume of mail from BEE-L?
* Want to improve the signal to noise ratio?
Send email to [log in to unmask] saying
join bestofbee

ATOM RSS1 RSS2