Organic Methoeds of Mite Control

[Michael Bush]

>I am aware of at least two "mite treatments" that are talked about ad-nauseum that are a compleate waste of time and money as stated by our nation's finest authorities.

Yes, what are they, and who, among our Nation's finest authorities, have throroughly tested them, and where are the results of the tests?

[HarryVanderpool]

Mr. Bush,
You left out the next two sentances after my quote which was THE point.
"But boy it sure feels like you are doing something!!!
Testing is the answer. The proof is in the test results, not in how good the "treatmant" makes us feel."
We can no longer treat by faith.
For the useless treatments and and test results, start going backward on your issues of ABJ.
I visit with you and all of the other fine board members here to discuss what DOES work, not to undercut members faith in feelgood "treatments".

[Michael Bush]

Monitoring is how we sort the faith from the works. I've always advocated it.

Also an understanding of the mites is essential to understanding the monitoring. If you monitor and there are a lot of mites and you treat (with whatever makes you feel good) and there are more mites dropping that seems good and probably is good, but a week later you may see the same mite drop as before the treatment, not because the treatment didn't work, but because the mites are constantly emerging (not to mention robbers bringing them back). I've seen many question proven treatments because of these kinds of numbers. I've also seen many question alternative treatments because of the exact same kind of numbers. I've also seen "proven" treatments fail because of resistance or whatever. If you don't monitor and take into account the emerging mites you'll never be able to sort out the difference between failing because of resistance or just more mites emerging.

I wish it was all more clear cut. It leaves a lot of beginners very discouraged and confused. But you have to understand the Varroa mites and you have to monitor their numbers and it's probably helpful to have a few different options in your arsenal. Obviously if you treat (assuming your solution involves treating) four times a week apart each time you should start seeing a decrease in the number of mites you kill and in the number falling naturally.

As much as I say all of this, and I do mean it, I am getting lazy, as I find no significant numbers of Varroa mites to count anymore.

[HarryVanderpool]

My approach to your valid points, is verification testing during the 24 hours after treatments are introduced into the hive.
I learned the concept from Mr. Bill Ruzika of Mitegone Inds:
In a balanced hive in the mid to late summer up to 80% of the varroa mites are sealed in cells with larva and pupea.
If hives are tested for natural drop and found to exceed the acceptable threshold limit, a clean sticky board should be installed for PRECICELY 24 hrs along with the treatmant.
You should hope to see 20 times the natural drop numbers in the first 24 hrs after treatment.
Lets do the math:
Daily natural drop = 28
28 X 120 = 3360 total mites in the hive.
AT LEAST 20% of the total mites in the hive are in the phoretic stage and should drop in the 1st 24 hours. later on in the year as brood decreases we could see the multiplier approach 30% in doomed hives.
3360total mites X 20% (.20) + 672 mites that should drop from an effective, and effectivly introduced treatment in the 1st 24 hours.
20 X 28 = 560 close enough.
The math works out, and makes sense to me.
(Makes me feel good too!)
Mr.Ruzika's web page is :
www.mitegone.com
Does this jive with you?
:confused:

[Jim Fischer]

> a clean sticky board should be installed for
> PRECICELY 24 hrs...

Studies at Penn State have shown 24 hours to be
too brief a period for good natural drop data.
They suggest 3 days, to eliminate the temperature
and weather factors, which can introduce variations.
(Divide your count by 3 to get a "daily" number,
or use the Penn State/Great Lakes IPM
"checkerboard".)

> 28 X 120 = 3360 total mites

Numbers like the above are utter nonsense to me,
as they would mean very different things for
large bee populations versus small populations.
While one certainly can estimate bee populations,
it is more reliable to compare drop tallies over
time, and track the CHANGE in mite drop over time.

[HarryVanderpool]

OOPS!!!!
Please forgive me, but I Boo, Booed!
I meant to say, (and I edited the post) that a precise 24 hr drop count AFTER treatment is installed.
Also, and as I do respect and value your views, Mr.Fischer, labeling thousands of graduate student's hours of research findings as "utter nonsense" is a bit harsh in my view.
How can you endorse Dr. Sammataro's work on the Penn State pro-rate board and discount years of work from the same crew to assess the ratios?
That said, I have noticed a spread from 100 to 120 per mite.

[Jim Fischer]

> How can you endorse Dr. Sammataro's work on the
> Penn State pro-rate board and discount years of
> work from the same crew to assess the ratios?

I did not "discount" anything. Penn State's
more recent work itself has shown both that the
earlier methods (relying on 24-hour drop tests)
were simply inaccurate. Nancy Ostiguy of Penn
State covered the whole issue in detail at EAS 2004.

As for "thresholds" and other hand-waving
attempts to rationalize a single drop count
as a basis for a treatment decision, it takes
nothing more than common sense to realize that
mite populations, measured in ignorance of
prior mite population levels, are useless if
the count is not expressed in terms of a
"mites per bee" ratio.

At minimum, one wants to have a rough idea
of the colony (bee) population, or one will
end up treating the hives with the largest
mite drops, which will always be the largest
(and most productive) hives, rather than
the hives that actually need treatment.

Better to admit that what matters is the
rate of change in mite population growth,
and admit that multiple data points are
required to make a decision.

Other segments of agriculture have an easier
time, as they can talk about "pest per acre",
and inherently know how many pests per plant.

But who ever said that beekeeping was easy?

[HarryVanderpool]

"As for "thresholds" and other hand-waving
attempts to rationalize a single drop count
as a basis for a treatment decision..."
Did I say this Mr. Fischer? :confused:
I re-read the thread.
The topic shifted to verification.
The only single drop test that I refered to was for the 24 hours of initial application of treatment.