Oxalic Acid Downside??

[Jim Fischer]

"My understanding is..."

"Help me out here Jim."

You are entitled to parrot (or misquote)
whatever you think you understand to your
heart's content.

No commentary or assistance is required from
me, nor will any be forthcoming as I have no
desire to do your research for you, or to
reconcile your "understandings" with mine.

At this point, your constant "baiting"
should be obvious to everyone. Why not
just try to add some value to the discussion,
and leave me out of it, rather than challenging
me to a "battle of wits"? I really would
rather not be challenged to "battle" by the defenseless.

(This would be much like defeating the feetless!) [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Dick Allen]

Aw....c'mon. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Ian]

>>wouldnÂ’t that make the mite breathing system more advanced than even the bees. Bees would drown if immersed in liquid.

How is that relevant to this conversation?


>>The mite's cuticle (skin) is heavily sclerotized (thickened), which helps reduce water loss.

Dicks got a point. Why does the OA affect the mite, but not the bee in the same manner? Perhaps the mite is smaller and more vonrable to damage, while the bee can tolerate a bit little more.
But that leads to another question, with multiple applications of OA. If the bee can withstand the damage better than the mite, then you would think after getting treated 3 times, as Axtmann does, the bees would surcum to damage and die just as the mites are.

[Dick Allen]

Hopefully Jim will explain a bit about the more advanced breathing system of bees as compared to mites and how that keeps the bees from "dehydrating" (his quotation marks). Jim, question is being sincerely asked.

[Michael Bush]

>I see no reason to vaporize the stuff given
the encouraging results seen with "drizzle"
applications

>What about Axtmanns claim that the liquid application is much harder on the bees, than he found with the vapourizing method?

Axtman's only had experience with both for over a decade. Why listen to him? What could he know? (Just for those who missed it. This is called sarcasm.) [img]smile.gif[/img]

My assumption is we should listen to those who used to trickle and have moved on to vaporizing. Why start ten years behind the learning curve?

[George Fergusson]

>My assumption is we should listen to those who used to trickle and have moved on to vaporizing.

I can only agree. My attitude toward dribbling is as a treatment of last resort; the sledge hammer approach.

Here's an interesting set of links to work done in Austria regarding the efficacy of vaporized OA treatments on 1509 colonies, with conventional treatments for comparison, and no treatments for controls. The other link is is a study of OA residues found in the hive after treatment, and working safety. Both very good reading.

The site is in German, but thankfully, they've provided these two documents (largely) in english:

http://www.mellifera.de/engl2.htm

http://www.mellifera.de/Engli2.pdf

They talk about using a "Varrox Vaporiser" which I googled for and found this:

http://www.biocontrol.ch/images/Varr...ungenglish.pdf

Comments welcome. Or not [img]smile.gif[/img]

George-

[Kieck]

>>After evaporation it takes a few day before mites start dropping. OA is not an instant killer.

Very few contact chemicals act instantly. Based on everything I've read, I still regard OA as a contact pesticide.

Whether OA is a contact or a systemic pesticide, I think mites could still develop resistance at some level. Resistance is a form of natural selection. Others have compared the action to getting hit by a hammer. To use the same analogy, wouldn't the mites that are fast enough to get out of the way of the hammer be "resistant?" What about the mites that survive getting hit by that hammer? The mites that have a thick enough cuticle to prevent dying from OA, or somehow manage to avoid exposure, or have slightly different mouthparts, or whatever, have a huge resource (bees) without competition (other mites). Enough OA to kill these mites -- call 'em "resistant" if you want, or don't -- might also be enough OA to kill the bees.

[chemistbert]

Whether or not a mite could develop a resistance to OA depends on how the acid kills. If it kills by interupting some manner of physiochemical system like fluvinate does then yes they could develop a resistance via evolutionary change. Selective breeding.
If the acid acts like I feel it does, in a purely physical manner than no resistance can be developed. It's like saying a person who happens to live after being stabbed or shot will breed bullet or knife resistant children. I hardly think so. My mites show no resistance to the only treatment I use, OA. It's been two years (not a long enough time I know) with no losses so give me a few more years and I can say more.

[Kieck]

The person who would have been stabbed or shot might have been lucky. What about those who avoided it in the first place?

Think of it like this: let's say that we have a huge deer population in the U.S. Some of these deer run faster than others. For some reason, we use greyhounds to run and kill deer. The deer that run slower than the greyhounds can be caught and killed, the ones that run faster than greyhounds obviously face less of a threat from the dogs. The action of the dogs is purely physical, yet a selective advantage (speed) allows some deer to survive. If the pressure is great enough, only the deer fast enough to outrun the dogs (or develop some other trait that allows them to outwit the dogs) will survive. Call it "selection," call it "resistance," it's really all the same thing.

>>My mites show no resistance to the only treatment I use, OA.

Most people are reporting that OA is about 80 to 85 percent effective. The survivors may not show any physiological resistance (although I doubt that anyone has actually tested that yet), but they are surviving. What if some of them really can withstand exposure to OA?

[George Fergusson]

Call it "selection," call it "resistance,"

Call it "Luck".

In your example of hunting deer with dogs, you're not going to breed faster deer, you're going to breed dead ones... er.. you're going to wipe out the population.

George-

[Dave W]

These are from my notes:

When consumed by V-mites, OA probably acts a protoplasmic poison by acidifying host bees hemolymph - ABJ, 6/04, p479

Because OA works through contact . . . mode of action appears to be low pH of OA solution - Nanetti, A (1999)

It is suggested that V-mites will not develop resistance to organic acids since they are a natural part of the metabolism of all organisms and can not be rendered harmless through enzymatic effects. - Fries, I; de Ruijter, A (2000)

[Kieck]

>>It is suggested that V-mites will not develop resistance to organic acids since they are a natural part of the metabolism of all organisms and can not be rendered harmless through enzymatic effects. - Fries, I; de Ruijter, A (2000)

I still don't see how this changes the rules of evolution/selection/development of resistance. Consider salt -- all organisms need some salts for metabolic processes, but too much salt kills most plants. A few plants can toleration ("resist") much higher concentrations of salt. The same could happen with mites; those that can tolerate higher levels of OA survive, thus creating "resistant" populations. Yes, you could probably kill them by increasing the amounts of OA used in the hives, but you'd probably endanger the bees at the same time. After all, burning the hives would greatly reduce populations of mites, but it's hard on the bees, too!

>>In your example of hunting deer with dogs, you're not going to breed faster deer, you're going to breed dead ones... er.. you're going to wipe out the population.

Why wouldn't it lead to faster deer? Obviously, the deer survive now, and coyotes run roughly as fast as greyhounds. If only the fastest deer survive, doesn't that breed faster deer over time?

[dickm]

Dave,

Read this slowly.
>>When consumed by V-mites, OA probably acts a protoplasmic poison by acidifying host bees hemolymph<<

I'd be interested to learn how a meal that the V-mite has eaten can alter the PH of the bees' hemolymph. I assume you meant that "when eaten by the bees...etc"

"Developing resistance." what a great coupling of 2 words. Nothing "develops resistance." It is already there, as Jon says. Mother nature comes in and brooms out most individuals in the presence of an acid storm. The fact that a few have a harder shell, will leave them to breed. Nothing "developed." They can breed fast too. That's one of natures ways to handle an acid storm. The next round has more hard shells in it and the broom cleans out most of them leaving only the toughest shells. Nothing "developed" but we have a new mite. This, by the way is how we got the superior mites we have. We kept up the fluvalinate/cumaphos storm until the ones that "fit" the new environment, the poisonous one, were all that was left.

I don't see why this couldn't happen.

Dickm
Thinking that the last thing a fish would discover is water!

[Michael Bush]

>Nothing "develops resistance." It is already there

Precisely.

[Jim Fischer]

> The fact that a few have a harder shell, will
> leave them to breed.

It is not a "fact" that some varroa will have
"harder" shells. In fact, I think that a poll
of acarologists would refute the idea.

About the best metaphor I can offer here is
that your bones are made of, umm.. BONE, and
that bone is bone is bone, and no one will EVER
be born with bones that are somehow "harder",
"denser", or stronger.

Another good example would be powdered sugar,
which clogs the tarsal pads of varroa, and
cause them to lose their "grip". What possible
varroa would exist with non-clogging tarsal pads,
and how would those tarsal pads work?

In general, attacks on basic physiology result
in a noticeable lack of the "development of a
resistant population".

Neurological chemicals and "poisons" attack
much more complex systems, with known variations
among individuals that allow some percentage
to survive a pesticide. In this case, there IS
a reasonable expectation that "only the weird
will survive", and thereby result in resistance.

[dickm]

About the best metaphor I can offer here is
that your bones are made of, umm.. BONE, and
that bone is bone is bone, and no one will EVER
be born with bones that are somehow "harder",
"denser", or stronger.

I'll Be careful calling something a "fact" if you will Jim. With all that goes into creating bone and maintaining it wouldn't you be at least a little surprised if all bone was the same? It's not much of a step to saying all muscle is the same. I don't thik you want to defend that.

Anyway,
From:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation
>>>More than 70% of the variability in human bone density has been attributed to genetic factors as a result of studies with twins, osteoporotic families, and individuals with rare heritable bone disorders.<<<

If people can have genetically endowed differences in bone density, why do you want to deprive the mites?

On the powdered sugar item I think you have me. To stretch the point I could imagine a few varroa that have a propensity to scamper like the wind at the smell of sugar. Behaviors are heritable. Consider the attraction SHBs have for alarm pheromone.

>>In general, attacks on basic physiology result
in a noticeable lack of the "development of a
resistant population".<<<

In general I'd agree. I was, however, talking about whether it was possible. If humans have variable bone density, why not insects?

Do you think it's Possible at all? I think it may be a tough thing all around but too many people have jumped in to say it's impossible. Maybe too quickly.

Dickm
Thinking : Being positive, is being wrong at the top of your lungs.

[George Fergusson]

>Why wouldn't it lead to faster deer? Obviously, the deer survive now, and coyotes run roughly as fast as greyhounds. If only the fastest deer survive, doesn't that breed faster deer over time?

Why would it? Is whatever that makes a given deer faster than another deer a genetic trait that can be selected for through avoidance of predators? What if that deer evades the coyotes only to starve to death, or get hit by a car before successfully mating? Maybe that deer that evaded death by doggie did so through superior intelligence or maybe, as I suggested earlier, he was just lucky.

Deer born with deformed hooves or half a lung, or 2 heads will be naturally selected OUT of the gene pool. Nature is pretty ruthless at getting rid of unfit mutations, but I'm pretty sure there's a lot more involved in the evolution of species than mere natural selection for gentically heritable traits.

OK, so let's say you breed a faster deer. Does this then in turn cause the development of faster coyotes by selecting for reproduction those faster ones with longer legs maybe that better succeed at hunting? Do the slow coyotes die off? Do you then end up with faster coyotes to chase the faster deer? Where does this natural selection race end? Does it escalate forever?

Let's look at something we're all painfully familiar with- barbed bee stingers. If natural selection is all it's cracked up to be, explain what natural selection pressure could possibly have arrived at a defense mechanism that when used, kills the defender? That's like making a gun with a barrel pointing each direction- Shoot the intruder, and kill yourself at the same time! The last weapon you'll ever have to buy!

Honeybees have had millions of years to select OUT those barbs, and yet they're still there. Why? Wasps don't have them. What's up with that?

George-

[Dick Allen]

http://www.planetfusion.co.uk/~pignut/cheese.html

[Michael Bush]

Maybe a stinger with a venom sack that stays attached and continues to pump venom for some time, is actually more effective? Or maybe God was playing a joke on the bees? Or us?

I believe the faster deer will not be any faster. You'll just have less of the SLOWER deer.

[Robert Hawkins]

The barb on the beestinger is actually able to pull out of many animals. Human skin is just tougher than whatever enemies the bee is developed for.

Hawk