Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 72
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    6,655

    Post

    >>Dilligent comb culling will help keep the stuff at bay.

    Mark

    Remember, its your strong hives that will go down first,
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    FRASER VALLEY, BRITISH COLUMBIA
    Posts
    1,350

    Post

    Sukie:

    22 pounds does about 500 hives one time. 3 dustings is probably for the same reason that oxytet was dusted 3 times.

    Jean-Marc

  3. #43
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Danbury,Ct. USA
    Posts
    1,966

    Post

    >>>[Tylan]Used this way AFB is no longer an issue

    I don't think it's a cure all. Am I missing something? I was told this was not for prophylactic use. Only to be used when you have the disease. Am I wrong. And then, of course it kills nothing, just hides it for later.

    Dickm

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,649

    Post

    >Am I wrong

    nope, you're right.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    >> IPM doesn't preclude the use of antibiotics

    > IPM has taken on an entirely different meaning
    > to some from it's original concept hasn't it?

    Not at all - the "original concept" of IPM was
    useful, and still is useful, regardless of what
    one used/uses to combat pests and diseases.

    I have often said in half-jest that IPM practices
    do not, in themselves preclude the use of
    short-range tactical battlefield nuclear weapons.

    It's only half jest, because IPM was originally
    a method of defining "targeted" use of some of
    the nastier pesticides ever created by man,
    not in an attempt to stop using those pesticides,
    but instead, in an attempt to make their use
    more effective, and allow less to be wasted,
    leading to the stuff getting into the groundwater
    and such.

    So while IPM practices certainly will reduce
    one's "waste" of pesticides, and thereby save
    a grower serious money, the idea that "IPM"
    involves or even suggests the use of "soft" or
    non-toxic alternative products is an impression
    given by unclear statements about alternative
    approaches. What SHOULD have been said is that
    since many alternative approaches don't have the
    impressive kill rates of the nastier chemicals,
    such products only have a ghost of a chance of
    controlling pests and diseases within the
    context of a well executed IPM plan and approach.

    So, is a screened bottom board an "IPM Product"?
    Sure it is, as it allows one to monitor varroa
    populations with minimum fuss, and no disturbance
    of the colony. But is it effective as a stand-alone
    "pest control product"? Not in the least! It only
    has value if you are going to use it within the
    context of an IPM program, as it only allows you
    to count mites, and is NOT a magic talisman
    against mites, nor is it a product that, by
    itself, will control mite populations enough to
    save an infested hive.

    But most beekeepers don't really want to implement
    IPM, as it takes work, and worse yet, organization.
    Beekeepers still want magic bullets, and when they
    are told that there is no such thing, they then
    ask "OK, can I buy some magic beans, instead?"

    Proof that beekeepers continue to refuse to lean
    about IPM is evident in the offhand statement
    that so many pounds of Tylan can be used to
    treat so many hives, as if the intent was to
    treat every single hive with Tylan.

    [size="1"][ January 05, 2006, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Jim Fischer ][/size]

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,649

    Post

    Hal wrote that IPM does not preclude the concept of antibiotics. I agreed with him.

    You wrote: “Not at all - the "original concept" of IPM was
    useful” then proceed to talk about using chemicals:

    “not in an attempt to stop using those pesticides,
    but instead, in an attempt to make their use
    more effective”

    I can actually agree with that, but how does that refute what Hal wrote?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    I took issue with your statement:

    "IPM has taken on an entirely different meaning
    to some from it's original concept hasn't it?"

    So, I took no issue with what Hal wrote, I took
    issue with what you wrote.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,649

    Post

    and what was that issue? Hasn't it taken on an entirely different meaning to some from it's original concept? Or no?

    [size="1"][ January 05, 2006, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ][/size]

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    6,655

    Post

    >>Beekeepers still want magic bullets,

    If by "majic bullets" you mean; cheap, quick to administer, effective at killing mites, ease on bees and brood, then yes we are looking for a magic bullet.
    Simple fact, most IPM techniques are just too impractical for most commercial operatiors, regardless of its effectiveness. Its the very reason there is still an ongoing focus on finding the better method, of what we have out there. And taking that method, and making it practical to most all beekeepers to use.
    Unfortunately, with brood diseases, our options are getting very narrow.
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    > Simple fact, most IPM techniques are just too
    > impractical for most commercial operatiors,
    > regardless of its effectiveness.

    Yes, I am well aware that a large number of
    people are perfectly willing to externalize
    their costs on others while internalizing
    profits into their wallets. Some people call
    them "commercial" beekeepers, but perhaps the
    actual term should be "overextended,
    undercapitalized, and understaffed beekeepers
    who use marginally trained casual labor".

    IPM seemed "impractical" to all of agriculture
    at first, and many of the same excuses you offer
    have been offered by those who see IPM as a
    "cost" rather than a path to survival and
    sustainability of the business as a whole.

    The only "good news" is that those in agriculture
    who do not invest in new techniques and
    technologies suffer lower yields, and are forced
    out of agriculture, often selling out to those who
    did make the investment. That's why farms get
    bigger over time, and that's why farming has
    become more "corporate".

    > Unfortunately, with brood diseases, our options
    > are getting very narrow.

    So maybe Tylan can be used with a little more
    restraint than prior treatments, so that
    resistance does not appear quickly. Recall that
    the overwhelming bulk of the colonies in North America are owned by "commercial" operators, so
    even if every "hobby" and "sideline" beekeeper
    on the continent indulged in massive misuse of
    treatments, there simply would not be enough
    mistreated colonies to create the widespread
    resistance that we have seen to various
    treatments.

    Simple fact, you have met your enemy, and he
    also has so many colonies, he isn't quite sure
    at any single point in time even how many he
    has, let alone how many are healthy. [img]smile.gif[/img]

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Perkasie, PA
    Posts
    1,998

    Post

    Tylosin resistance will probably spread faster than tetracycline resistance spread. This is a good time for beekeepers to find a way to make IPM profitable. Also, it seems to me that many people prefer honey to cane sugar because it is "natural". Heavy relience on antibiotics detracts from this perception and will ultimately cause consumers to use "natural" sweeteners other than honey. This can only hurt commercial beekeepers in the end. When doing things on a large scale, I think that its especially important to examine non-monetary costs associated pesticides and such.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    6,655

    Post

    >>IPM seemed "impractical" to all of agriculture
    at first, and many of the same excuses you offer
    have been offered by those who see IPM as a
    "cost" rather than a path to survival and
    sustainability of the business as a whole.


    Simple fact Jim, most of these organic controls are impractical solely due to the time involved in administration of the treatment. Its the continued studdy on these treatments by the commercial minded community focusing on making some of these treatments actually practial in larger operations, and sideline all the same. In our hunt for the "magic bullet".

    Its the continued support of our beekeeping community here in Western Cananda that has encouraged and sponsored and lobied for extensive reaserch on indoor formic acid treatment.

    It is the commercial beekeepers who have paid for the registration of Oxalic Acid here in Canada. I know for a fact that registration of products to be used in our hives is very important in your eye.
    Going on to elaborate on ideas and inovate devices that allow the application of the OA in mear seconds. Taking that device, mass producing it and providing its usefulness to all of beekeeping.

    Its our commercial beekeeping community that has been selecting and breading localized hygenic bees, to tolerate mites. And their progress has been stagering.

    Your too quick on your assumtions Jim. Perhaps we commercial beekeepers are "overextended,
    undercapitalized, and understaffed beekeepers
    who use marginally trained casual labor", but we are progressive, practical, and in continous search for the inovative idea that allows us to bring longterm sustainability back into our operations.
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    6,655

    Post

    Simple fact, you have met your enemy, and he
    also has so many colonies, he isn't quite sure
    at any single point in time even how many he
    has, let alone how many are healthy. [Smile]

    So then, how have you been able to control the pests in your hives?
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,649

    Post

    >Tylosin resistance will probably spread faster than tetracycline resistance spread

    It's off-label use is already being talked about. Some who are discussing using it not in accordance with instructions appear to be unaware of its intended use as a few on this thread have already pointed out.

    How many will, in the end, simply use it any old time "just in case" or as a "preventive"?

    [size="1"][ January 06, 2006, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ][/size]

  15. #55
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Danbury,Ct. USA
    Posts
    1,966

    Post

    A long time ago when reading about whaling, I came acroos the line that:"Some businesses should go out of business." Maybe factory farming of bees is one of them.

    Dickm
    I'm not that serious, I just want people to think.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Erin, NY /Florence SC
    Posts
    3,361

    Post

    At any time of the season, I have hives in a multitude of conditions for a variety of reasons ranging from weak to strong. So the label says I will treat the weak hive (4-5 lbs of bees) with x amount of tylan laced sugar. Now I get to the boomer, I'm giving it the same amount. Does this make any sense? Are we treating for the strong hive and overdosing the weak? Delaplanes' opinion was the reason Oxy reisistance came on was due to sublethal dosages. What didn't we learn with OXY?

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    46,785

    Post

    >So then, how have you been able to control the pests in your hives?

    I let the bees handle them. [img]smile.gif[/img]

    >What didn't we learn with OXY?

    That antibiotics are a dead end? That propping up weak genetics is a dead end? What else didn't we learn?
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Perkasie, PA
    Posts
    1,998

    Post

    Joel,

    You brought up an interesting point about dosage. I'd be interested to hear how the original label tests were done. With regard to the spread of resistance, there is solid evidence that resistance genes don't need to evolve: they can jump from other strains or even other bacterial species on plasmids. Bacteria are really adaptable little buggers.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Erin, NY /Florence SC
    Posts
    3,361

    Post

    {That antibiotics are a dead end? That propping up weak genetics is a dead end? What else didn't we learn?}

    MB I hear you, see my post on winter losses. It is also a fact that with the best breeding available we are working against the natural world by overpopulating an area with a species. I think chemotheraputic or natural controls will always be needed in commercial operations. Let's keep in mind that when foulbrood wiped out beekeeping the chemical model we are using today did not exist. The natural selection of the time succumbed to a disease. If it's not foulbrood it will be some other parasite or disease thriving in the un-natural environment of overpopulation we create.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    6,655

    Post

    >>Recall that
    the overwhelming bulk of the colonies in North America are owned by "commercial" operators, .....indulged in massive misuse of
    treatments,

    >>This is a good time for beekeepers to find a way to make IPM profitable.

    >>How many will, in the end, simply use it any old time "just in case" or as a "preventive"?


    I realize culling comb as the most effective method to control AFB within an operation. No doubt about that.

    But tell me what IPM I can use to prevent the outside infection of AFB in my hives?

    To continual resonse I hear in regards to the formation of rAFB to oxytet, is much exactly what Jim has said "indulged in massive misuse of treatments". Which I can understand from a vantage point where by the shear volume of the product used has placed a very heavey selection pressure on the bacteria, bring upon us rAFB.

    But to say the volume of the antibiotic used has been a massive misuse of the treatment is drawing a conclusion from either a false statement, or a misunderstanding of what the treatment is being used for.

    General Oxytet treatment of our colonies spring, and fall is a preventative measure beekeepers have been taking in order to prevent outside infection to our honeybee hives.
    You can participate in all the comb replacement culling you want, and still have an outbreak of AFB in your hives due to neighbouring problems. This especially holds true for beekeepers who participate in pollination services, where they dont have any clue from where the colonies come from.

    Until all beekeepers out there, big small, young, old, hobby, sideline or commercial, start participating in better comb culling/rotation practices and also induldge themselves to get better educated on AFB, I as a beekeeper will continue to use these products as a precautionary measure to protect my hives from outside infection of AFB.
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads