From: DeeALusby1@aol.com
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 01:42:48 EDT
To: BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Survivability vs IPM?

Pav wrote:
> But treating as you cull a queen lets the new queen start with a clean(ish)
> slate, and her hive can then stand or fall on its own merits, without
> having to cope with leftover mites from the old line, or nearby collapsing
> hives, which may wrongly cause one to think your new queen has a problem
> with mite reproduction.

Reply:
So Pav what do you do with the residues? When do you change the combs to run
clean? and not have residual residues effecting the mites and the bees
themselves?

Just exactly how is this giving a new queen a chance if you don't by cause
and effect change the environment that has caused the problem, namely the
improper sized combs?

Pay then continued:
> Then, if you want to see how the mite levels will build-up, you don't have
> to treat that hive again - until you decide that the hive is about to go
> under, and you want to hit the reset button befor the next new queen. You
> only need 'crash' the old queen, not the whole hive.

Reply:
So how often do you hit the restart button then? yearly as you requeen, so
what is the difference? And what if the requeening is during the active
season and honey flow on? Treat anyway! I my self cannot see this reasoning.
It's just another way in mindset to justify doping with various treatments.
When does the application of various treatments stop Pav? How do you
rationalize this?

Pav then wrote:
> In this context treating is not being used to prop-up vulnerable genes, but
> rather as a diagnostic tool to help beekeepers to identify how good their
> bees genes are. This way there is also a positive selection for 'tamer'
> mites too, as previously discussed.

Reply:
Any way you treat an average once a year is still regular treating and a road
to no-where in the long-haul for ending your problem.

> >The chemicals that effect the mites
> >effect the bees also and their larva.
>
> >Apistan... Couomaphos... Amitraz... Acids... oils
>
> Mmmmm, yet it might also be argued that letting the entire hive die could "
> effect the bees also and their larva" to some degree.

Reply:
It also gets rid of bees that genetically should have perished in Nature long
ago and adding to the overall problem of finding bees that fit the
environment and are survivors to the situation and thus bees you really want,
but are afraid to do the time to achieve!

Pav continued:
> Again, we seem to be stuck in a mind-set rut, refering to blanket treating
> to let you carry on with the same queen, make honey, same again next
> year. We're talking about a different situation where we've "left alone"
> to the point that the hive is about to die. Rather than let 'natural
> selection' waste the worker force needlessly, we can concede the game,
> salvage the workers, and continue the match, hopefully with a better queen.

Reply:
Like I said try to save everything that should be allowed to go and all you
do is prolong the situation and give job security to yourself. Do you really
in your heart want to keep forever this way Pav? Is chemical treatments and
feeding sugar a really good way to sustain bees relative to the way Nature
intended?

> Didn't Dennis get good knock-down with powdered sugar, which isn't toxic and
> doesn't even kill the mites (or harm the bees), but rather interferes with their
> grip on the bees and gets the bees grooming, making the mites fall off
> (and through your mesh floor, safely out of the hive). Honey would still
> be safe (even though there's no point in sugar dusting the honey supers).

Reply:
I myself don't believe in dusting for mite knock-down and I hear that Dennis
isn't getting much drop of mites anymore anyway.

But honestly, IMPOV all dusting does is disguise the natural upswings and
downswings of natural mite cycles throughout the active year and divert bees
from performing their normally assigned jobs within a hives division of
labor. Why cannot you just watch and see what is naturally occurring without
all the gimmickry?

Pav continued:
> If the only options presented are blanket treating versus letting hives die
> so as to get natural selection, i'd venture that most beek's will stay on
> the treadmill.

Reply:
True statement, but until done the problem will remain unfortunately.

Pav ended:
> With monitoring and requeening each time you do treat (as the researchers
> say they were doing), you would actually be speeding up the selection
> process (though not to the same degree as instrumental insemination
> created the SMR bees from a naturally pre-existing trait).

Reply:
No, I don't think so, just delaying the enivatible outcome of hive collapse
and monitoring instead of acting as a beekeeper.

Sincerely,

Dee A. Lusby