Jim asked about seeing nosema:
I think that we may have been at cross purposes, my mistake. Jim is trying
to see the protozoa, whereas I (and I suspect most others) would be looking
for the spores.
> Do you use a stain?
No
> How do you prepare your samples?
This is detailed in Morse and Hooper, Encyclopaedia of Beekeeping. Simply
crush abdomens (these would be from the normal 30 bee sample dissected for
acarine) with 10ml water in a mortar and pestle, place drop of the liquid on
slide and cover with a cover glass. Usually view at 400x. Spores easily
visible as 'rice grains'. The book also gives method for quantitative
analysis of the severity of the infection for nosema , as well as a table of
probabilities for the acarine analysis.
> What sort of light source are you using?
Tungsten light bulb.
> The concept of the "treadmill" does not apply to Fumadil and
> Nosema. It is not like the protozoa are going to develop
> "resistance", now is it? :)
I do not know the answer to that one - are we back to trying to prove a
negative?
> I feel obligated to point out the obvious -
> we have exactly two problems (varroa and AFB) that have developed
> "resistance" of any sort. I know of no reports of "resistance"
> in ANY OTHER pest or disease.
Hmmm! you might not have included AFB in the not too distant past!
> I hear of many beekeepers who think that they have (all by
> themselves) "bred from the survivors", and ended up with bees
> resistant to varroa.
At least they are trying! The reason that we do not have a problem with
acarine in the UK is that we have bred from the survivors.
> They claim "no losses",
I will never be accused of that!
> Until such time as I see some verified results that prompt
> researchers and/or breeders to make the claims that they
> would certainly love to make, I will continue to both test
> and treat problems and keep my bees alive.
And so will I - but not by looking for problems where common sense and
simple observation tells me that they do not exist, or are at such low
levels as to be insignificant.
> Even when such
> "resistant" bees are offered, I would tend to continue to
> test for quite some time before I was willing to bet my
> colonies to save a few pennies.
I will be reluctant even then. Breeding and distributing vast numbers of
queens from a limited number of truly resistant queens could do irreparable
damage to the gene pool, especially given that there are so few, if any,
truly feral colonies left. This would leave our bees in an even more
vulnerable state.
> The Latin translates to "Merciful lord Jesus, Grant them rest"
> which I feel is a highly appropriate prayer for bees that are
> abandoned by their owner and left to cope as best they can with
> the whims of disease and attacks of pests.
Agree - but there is a world of difference between limited, necessary
intervention and attempted total control.
I am, frankly, horrified by the postings on the newsgroups that I read -
menthol patties, grease patties, terra patties, pollen patties, endless
feeding of sugar at times when the bees should be feeding themselves,
Apistan, Bayvarol, Checkmite, Fumadil... the list goes on and on. One
person wrote, 'I have just started keeping bees; how do I medicate them?' I
am sure that Marla Spivak was right to say that beekeepers have become
pushers. In my view, bees can be kept very successfully without the need
for any drugs or pesticides, except perhaps in the case of varroa. I know
that some will say that varroa can be controlled by other means, but here I
choose to use thymol crystals to keep numbers to a sub-lethal level in order
to give the bees a chance to develop resistance. Others may disagree with
my strategy, which I see as a least worst option. I do regard this as a
treadmill and will be delighted to get off it when I can.
> I'm a beeKEEPER. I'm gonna do what I can to KEEP the bees.
Never doubted it!
> That's not a treadmill. A "treadmill" is when I use even
> more nasty chemicals because less nasty ones have stopped
> working.
Disagree - my view is that it is a treadmill to use any drug where none is
needed.
> > Incidentally, Fumadil is no longer available in the UK.
> I did not know that. Neither apparently do some bee supply
> houses. Thorne http://www.thorne.co.uk and Bees Online
> http://www.bees-online.co.uk both still list the product
> in their online catalogs. What's up with that?
Whoops! How did I miss that one? No matter, I am afraid that I will not be
adding to Mr Thorne's fortune at £76 for 54 colonies - even if I was
inclined to use it.
> ...So what would you use in the UK to treat a case of Nosema
> if you were so inclined?
Put bees on to clean comb and sterilise the old ones with acetic acid if
they are in otherwise good condition. Fumidil does not cure nosema in a
colony - it kills nosema within individual bees, but nothing to reduce the
level of infection on the combs.
I felt that some recent posts may have confused nosema and amoeba. Amoeba
are, of course found in the malpighian tubules and may be seen under the
microscope (in the test described above) as round cysts (not spores). The
fumigation of comb with acetic acid will also kill amoeba. (But most of you
knew all that!)
I note that there was no comment on my question about average crops in the
US. Surely with all this monitoring, medication, feeding, double and triple
brood boxes, your average must be at least 1000lbs per colony? :-)
Peter Edwards
[log in to unmask]
www.stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk/
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
