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:
Paul Hosticka <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 26 Feb 2018 13:40:10 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
I will try again to clarify my proposal and then let it go. 

If one is scientifically looking for a line of bees that are resistant to varroa mites then they can not interfere with the bees efforts to control the mites. If one does, then they don't know if the bees are controlling the mites or if the intervention is having an effect. So a researcher or breeder has to let those colonys deal with the mite load entirely on their own. If selected queens emerge from such a study that are able to keep mite levels at a non-damaging level then the breeder moves to the next step. Continuing to not interfere, they will test descending generations to find if the trait is heritable. If in the happy circumstance that it is, the breeder will try to establish a population of bees that can control varroa. Even if the control is only partial it can still be very useful and a big step in the right direction. Key to all of this is knowing if the bees are different or if the management is different. So the colonies in the trials have to be treatment free and at the same time exposed to mite pressure in their environment. That is what I call treatment free as regards bee research.

Beekeepers, of which I have been one for 40+ years, that are trying to manage healthy colonys need to keep mite populations under control least they will soon not be keeping bees. There are a lot of successful strategies for achieving that.  At one end of the spectrum is intense physical management. This includes frequent splitting, queen capture for brood break, drone removal, screened bottoms, and more. They all depend on interrupting the mites reproduction cycle and, with diligence, have been proven to be effective. Moving up the ladder are the so called soft chemicals. Powdered sugar, essential oils, organic acids, and more are being experimented with all the time. These are effective by actually killing mites either phoretic or in capped cells. We do not clearly understand the mode of action on all but agree that the likelihood of mite resistance is reduced. Most require favorable environment conditions to be effective and can do real harm if those conditions are not met. At the top are the approved synthetic chemical miteasides. History has not been kind to this class, the mites develop resistance, and for some, have the additional problem of wax contamination and detrimental health effects on the bees themselves. However fluvalinate saved the industry and amatraz is still widely used and effective. From my perspective all of these are designed to reduce mite populations and are thus  mite treatments. 

The semantic and social arguments are not what I'm talking about. I do not understand the beeks that are clearly going to considerable effort to control their mite populations yet refuse to call such efforts treatments. Beeks that do nothing and think that mite resistance will spontaneously emerge are in my mind delusional. A scientist trying to find a mite reducing trait can't interfere with the bees efforts and thus must not treat for mites. All I'm asking for is accurate and descriptive definitions that we can agree on so we know what each other is saying. Choose your poison, but keep your eye on the ball. Nuff said.  

Paul Hosticka
Dayton WA

             ***********************************************
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2