Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 106
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Troupsburg, NY
    Posts
    4,072

    Post

    Jim:

    You raise good points for not using chemical treatments, or at least some of them. But what happens if there is a chemical reaction between two different treatments? Granted this may or may not be the case, but there is always a possibilty that it "could" happen, (not saying it will). It would seem if checkmite is the latest treatment, and it's not a good thing to use, that chemical treatments are just plain not working, and we need to as an industry, move past these invasive treatments to something more natural. Any ideas???

    peggjam
    "I reject your reality, and substitute my own." Adam Savage

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    > what happens if there is a chemical reaction
    > between two different treatments?

    Sounds farfetched.

    That's not to say that someone, somewhere, isn't
    going to do something really silly, like mix
    formic acid by pouring water into the acid,
    rather than pouring the acid into the water,
    all while not wearing any safety equipment,
    of course.

    > chemical treatments are just plain not working

    While there are places where resistance to
    multiple chemicals has been reported, this
    is much less widespread than one might think
    from all the wringing of hands, tearing of
    hair, rending of garments, and lamentations.

    While Api-Life is approved in some states,
    and Sucrocide in others (perhaps all, I'm not
    sure) these "soft alternatives" are not covered
    by a Section 18 in all states, due to the
    stubborn insistence on the part of some states
    to only request one section 18 per pest.

    > we need to as an industry, move past these
    > invasive treatments to something more natural

    No, something more effective. "Natural" has
    nothing to do with it. One of the safest and
    surest ways to truly kill all stages of AFB
    with zero side effects is to use cobalt radiation
    or E-beam, but neither one of these treatments are
    "natural" at all.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Troupsburg, NY
    Posts
    4,072

    Post

    Jim:

    Natural has everything to do with it.

    peggjam
    "I reject your reality, and substitute my own." Adam Savage

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    Mike Stanghellini said:

    > Duration of study: this could likely take a
    > year, and quite possibly two or more.
    > I have frequent monitorings from 'large cell'
    > bees that started on normal foundation, and the
    > mite population developed so slowly in some of
    > these, that I didn't have to treat them until
    > the 2.5-year mark.

    This brings up a BIG point that is not stressed
    often enough or clearly enough to beekeepers by
    the research community in articles or presentations.

    Yep, you could have apparent "success" in
    "defeating varroa" for 2 seasons in a row using
    nothing more than incense and crystals. [img]smile.gif[/img]

    Now, when you combine this with the average
    "highly productive" life of a queen being
    no more than 2 years in a typical honey
    producing and/or pollinating colony, you have
    all sorts of chances to fool yourself into
    thinking that:

    a) My idea WORKS!!! No varroa crashes for
    two whole years without any treatment
    except the Van Der Graf Generator placed
    atop the hive! I'll make millions!
    I'll win a Nobel Prize!

    b) Darn, I should have bred from that queen
    I replaced - I requeened, and the new queen
    clearly does not have the same "hygienic
    traits", as the colony now has varroa.

    c) Wow, I shouldn't have split that colony.
    After the split, all splits and the parent
    suddenly were overrun with varroa.

    So, if you want to claim that something really
    "works" in regard to varroa, you can't simply
    take the results of a season or two as evidence
    of anything.

    ...and Mike, you can pay me off in mead for
    handing you the outline for your next
    presentation on a silver platter. [img]smile.gif[/img]

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    27

    Post

    Jim, it's a deal. I can work the need for multi-season, multi-year monitoring into a number of talks. Thanks for the "sound bites".

    By the way, in reference to character comments above, I personally think your well-developed, often mock-abrasive sense of humor is hilarious. I sometimes think you're channeling a 1950's thug from Brooklyn (this is a good thing).

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

    Post

    Jim, I thought you promised us you were going out to pick apples or something......

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    27

    Post

    Dick - you're as "bad" as Jim. [img]smile.gif[/img]

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Scenic Flint Hills , KS
    Posts
    5,159

    Post

    >...and Mike, you can pay me off in mead

    Kool-aid flavored mead?
    Bullseye Bill in The Scenic Flint Hills , KS
    www.myspace.com/dukewilliam

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,649

    Post

    Mike, thanks for your unsolicitated testimonial about my Alaska honey you gave the other day on another forum. FYI, some of that honey came from small cell bees.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    27

    Post

    Cool. If I can manage to get some small-cell bees, I'll run a trial. I'm one of those stubborn fellas that has to see it for myself to be fully convinced, even when I'm comfortable accepting the comments from people I believe are on-the-level. The regression steps sound a little awkward, and the change-overs in ownerships in the very few apparent suppliers of small-cell bees will likely make this a 2006 study.

    Don't even get me started on that other "forum".

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lenexa, Kansas
    Posts
    445

    Post

    Can anyone tell me the risks of regressing bees?

    I also read this....
    "The effort and cost of going through two changes of all the comb in all of your hives "

    Can you tell me about this? I read about the effectiveness of small cell from time to time, but I don't know where to read about the how-to-do-it-and-what-are-the-problems part.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Scenic Flint Hills , KS
    Posts
    5,159

    Post

    I think that you may want to start here with the articles written by the Lusbys.

    http://beesource.com/pov/lusby/index.htm

    However there are some quicker ways to get the job done.
    Bullseye Bill in The Scenic Flint Hills , KS
    www.myspace.com/dukewilliam

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    46,742

    Post

    I have a couple of top bar hives that started as large cell packages and I've never done any extra regression and they are doing fine. But Dee Lusby's defined threshold for controling mites and secondary diseases was 4.9mm. So the goal is to get 4.9mm cells, at least in the center of the frames of the center of the brood nest. The first regression usually ends up closer to 5.1mm worker brood cells. If you take the bees that were raised on these cells and put them on small cell, or let them build their own comb, they tend to run as low as 4.6mm but mostly run around 4.9mm for worker brood cells.

    This is "The effort and cost of going through two changes of all the comb in all of your hives "

    If you want to simplify your life and not do regression, just buy small cell foundation and use it when you need foundation. Put your packages on it. Monitor the mites and treat as needed. I'm sure you'll find a lot less mites.

    But if you want to be completely clean and have no need for treatments you may need to make sure you have 4.9mm or smaller cells in the center.

    Dennis, as I understand him, has decided that regression doesn't matter. He's been doing this longer than me. I'm being cautious and assuming I need to meet the target of 4.9mm or smaller in the center of the brood nest in order to not treat at all.

    As Bullseye has observed, even 5.1mm cell size makes a significant difference in mite levels.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  14. #54

    Post

    >On testing, the paper cited above, which checked >small cell in AHBs for mite control, used what I >think is a wise approach.
    >They started with regressed bees, then created >three hives, I beleive with a queen and so many >pounds of workers each, then gave some hives >small cell and some large cell. After a season, >they used SBB and catchments or sugar rolling to >screen for, and quantify, varroa mite levels.

    The above is completely wrong, sorry. I hadn't read more than the abstract. The method they used is much better. It doesn't require more than a few weeks.
    They put three empty frames, each with differently-sized cells, into hives, then returned to observe varroa levels in brood soon after.
    They didn't wait a whole season, or even manipulate entire hives.

    I think their method is importantly better.
    http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2..._full_text.htm


    Brian Cady

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    46,742

    Post

    Unfortunately the method they used only measures infestation rates of the capped cells, which is useful information. But it does not take into account the shorter post capping times which would cut the Varroa reproductive capabilities in half by itself. If the smaller cells and one day shorter capping times hadn't cut the infestation rate this method would never have caught the change in Varroa populations that occur because of the shorter post capping times and therefore might have come to the conclusion that there was no difference because of cell size.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    526

    Post

    Hi Guys,

    Most of the small cell research has focused on what effects the smaller cell size has on mite behavior. Yet, mite behavior in my small cell hives has remained much the same. But bee behavior toward the mites has drastically changed.

    Measuring mites in different sized capped cells would yield little information as my small cell hives detect, uncap and remove the mites. :&gt

    Regards
    Dennis

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Birmingham, West Midlands, UK
    Posts
    751

    Post

    If they'd used hives made up with a single cell size, and measured the mite levels after a year, they'ds have had something a lot more meaningful!
    RSBrenchley@aol.com
    Birmingham UK

  18. #58

    Post

    While Micheal Bush, demerl51 and Robert Brenchley have well-thought points, and this easy method of documenting small cell control of Varroa thus can NOT prove that small cell FAILS to control Varroa, it still might be able to prove that small cell SUCCEEDS in controlling Varroa, and with a much easier method than whole-hive season-long surveys, as ought to be done.
    This easy, quick method appparently did prove success of SC against Varroa with AHBs.

    Brian Cady

  19. #59

    Post

    I just thought I'd add something. I'm currently doing a research project, in WV, regarding the effectiveness of small cell. My focus is on the hobby beekeeper and what they can expect if they choose to regress their colonies. I have a small data set so far and have just completed the second regression. At the first regression after OA treatment, I saw a statistically significant difference (reduction) in mite levels for SC vs LC. I have not used chemicals since 2001 and have never lost a colony.
    Last edited by Barry; 07-10-2011 at 03:36 PM.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    > I'm currently doing a research project,
    > in WV, regarding
    > the effectiveness of small cell.

    Great! You gonna publish in a real peer-reviewed journal?
    I hope so. Can I drive over from East Virginia to
    take some photos, and ask some dumb questions?
    Anyone who is willing to put their hives where
    other people's mouths are deserves at least a
    1-page article in Bee Culture.

    Need funding? Apply to the EAS grant machine,
    pull the handle, and maybe you will be the lucky
    winner of a cash grant.
    Last edited by Barry; 07-10-2011 at 03:37 PM.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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