Peter, cited the "Apis" Newsletter: > Dr. Spivak said... "Bees are certified 'junkies' and > beekeepers have become their 'pushers'." and Peter asked: > Seeing where these comments were coming from - > is it not a trifle rich to hammer into beekeepers > who are now reacting to new diagnostic techniques... The line was intended to be "rich". That was her "sound bite". Her "headline". Blame TV news for making everyone think that complex ideas need to be distilled down to bumper-sticker length phrases. When one reads on, and looks at what she said beekeepers should do, much of what she said was on target. Some of it was "preaching to the choir". But with all due disrespect, some of what she was quoted as saying strikes me as verging on pure fantasy. "Apis" quotes her thusly: 1. Stop right now any preventative feeding of antibiotics. 2. Cull combs to remove AFB spores and pesticide/antibiotic residues. 3. Leave mites in colonies; do not try to eliminate them all; in some cases bees can sustain 10% to 15% infestation with little harm. 4. Pesticides "pamper" bees; let them use their own innate defense mechanisms. Use selective breeding to give bees tools to work with and then leave them on their own. This includes incorporating hygienic behavior, SMR and characteristics of other stocks (Russians). 5. Use IPM now! This means thinking before acting; apply pesticides only as a last resort. Use soft chemicals when possible. Again, leave mites in the colony so the bees have a long- term fighting chance on their own. My perspectives on her points are: (1) I agree completely. In this specific regard, beekeepers ARE "drug pushers". With better diagnostic tools, perhaps beekeepers will treat with certainty of knowledge rather than with nothing more than blind fear or from blind habit. (2) Also agree. It's amazing how few beekeepers have any sort of frame age-tracking system in place, and the result is that combs are in service far too long. (3) All control approaches appear to leave SOME mites, which is the essential reason why resistance crops up. If there was a control approach that could eradicate 100% of mites at time of application, I'd love to see it. I also question the prudence of the 10% to 15% estimate in light of the mite/virus work done recently in Beltsville by the USDA, but I fear that "10% to 15%" is merely the actual percentage of mites left alive by the currently-used treatments. (4) If anyone's bees had any "innate defense mechanisms" we would have found "survivor colonies" and bred from them by now. My take on "hygienic", "SMR", and "Russian" bees is that they have failed to live up to the hopes of beekeepers in regard to disease/pest resistance, and have each presented quirks that have been serious problems in the field. If merely keeping my bees alive is "pampering" them, then I intend to continue "pampering". I know that knocking down varroa early and often keeps my colonies alive. I'm not interested in doing my own "selective breeding". Those who do nothing else are better at it than me, and to date, they have offered no tangible improvement that would allow me to cease using a miticide. (5) I agree, but I >>MIGHT<< be able to legally use a "soft" chemical (Api-Life) for the first time this fall, so I'm not sure why she was not preaching in the direction of the US EPA and FDA rather than beekeepers. Honey is food, so I am a strict observer of both the letter and the spirit of the laws and regulations, which to date, have not endorsed the general use of ANY "soft" chemicals in the USA. (5a) Regardless, IPM is a valid approach even if one uses short- range tactical nuclear weapons as one's response to a detection of pests or disease above the economic threshold. One should not confuse "IPM" with the choice of pesticides, and the phrase "last resort" has no business in any description of "IPM". One does not have a "last resort" in IPM. One only has well-thought-out and appropriate responses that one implements with the glacial calm and aplomb of a baccarat player saying "banco". But the above are merely my views. Dr. Marla Spivak was awarded the "James I. Hambleton Award" for being outstanding in her field, which is why she gave the speech. I'm just another anonymous beekeeper. If anyone was to say that I was "outstanding in my field", it would be only because I really >>WAS<< out standing in my field at the time. :) jim :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::