I'll limit myself to addressing only the items that
are clearly not factually correct.
> Just how dangerous is Fumidil to your hive?
> It's hard to say exactly
No, it is very easy to say.
It is not even a little bit dangerous.
The only danger it poses is to the Nosema.
It is a very specific item, and not at all similar to a broad-sprectrum
antibiotics of the sort that Mike apparently thinks it is.
> Experience with antibiotics would say that they upset the natural flora
> of any system. They kill off a lot of things that perhaps should be there
> along with what shouldn't leaving a vacuum to be filled by whatever
> can flourish.
This might be a valid concern for a wide-spectrum antibiotic being used
in a creature like a human, which uses "Beneficial Microorganisms" to
aid in things like digestion, but bees are different. They use enzymes.
There are no "Beneficial Microorganisms" helping bees. This is basic
bee biology, so this sort of misleading comparison can be said to be
not just "misinformed", but "completely wrong".
So if there is a microorganism in a bee, that's a problem for the bee.
> Propping up weak bees.
If Mike's approach to beekeeping is let every hive that gets Nosema
(or perhaps shows any other sign of weakness) die, perhaps there's
someone who lives near Mike and has a less "laissez-faire" approach
to beekeeping who would like to adopt those bees rather than have
them die. (
With love and a little care [some might call it "beekeeping"],
these bees can be given the chance to live full and productive,
perhaps even happy, lives that God intended them to live...
...send your dollars now to "Save The Bees"...)
As there is no Nosema-resistant stock out there, any illusion that one
might cling to about about somehow having "nosema resistant stock"
as a result of letting hives die would be self-delusion. In fact, one
must kill the nosema spores that would remain on the comb (Acetic
acid seems to be the current favorite) if one wants to re-use combs
from a hive that died from Nosema, so letting Nosema get out of hand
can wipe out not just a hive, but multiple hives in the same yard
as a result of robbing, and multiple colonies put on the infected
woodenware.
> Having an area of the hive that is the only part there when chemicals
> are applied is a nice idea, but it's a lot like a no-peeing section in a
> swimming pool.
Mike made a funny!
The suggested time to feed Fumadill is in early spring, when the
bees are eating up a storm to raise brood, draw comb, and
otherwise ramp up the hive for spring. As fast as bees take feed
during this period, it is (ahem) highly unlikely that any feed would
remain unconsumed, or any feed would even be stored for more
than a few hours. Of course, Mike says he does not feed his bees
either, so he may not be aware of the rapid rate of consumption
of "artificial nectar" in early spring by a colony that is being fed
well in advance of any blooms.
> What other non-organic practices may contribute to Nosema?
Nosema is a bee disease that was here long before we started
keeping bees, and will still be here long after we are safely and
cozily dead. Back when all beekeeping could have been described
as "organic" it was a problem, so while it may make some
beekeepers feel smugly justified in adopting a holier-than-thou
stance thinking that "non-organic practices" are the root of all evil,
this is wishful thinking. To suggest that one set of practices or
another (other than neglecting to sample and test for it) might
somehow contribute to Nosema is misleading in the extreme.
> "While the non-organic group tends to want to believe that feeding
> sugar instead of leaving honey will prevent Nosema,
No one informed thinks this, it is dysentery that is avoided by
feeding pure feed, free of indigestible components, like sugar syrup.
The "non-organic" group would be more likely to not make this error,
and they would tend to know a bit more about diseases, as they
tend to do more than simply let hives die from them.
And while we are on the subject, calling one's honey "organic"
without following the USDA "National Organic Program" rules
is a violation of federal law, and carries steep fines. Ditto
for calling one's "growing methods" organic.
> Many of the Honey Bee's enemies, such as Nosema, Chalkbrood, EFB,
> and Varroa all thrive and reproduce better at the pH of sugar syrup
> and don't reproduce well at the pH of honey.
But if this made any difference, the beekeepers who fed honey would
have less incidence of these specific problems. They don't, so it
doesn't.
> This, however, seems to be universally ignored in the beekeeping world.
And with good reason, if one thinks it through slowly enough.
Let's walk though it together, shall we?
For the
brood diseases, the difference appears to be a moot point, given
that bees convert the feed or the honey to a consistent brood food
product with a consistent pH before feeding it to brood, thus eliminating
the problem as it applies to the brood diseases. Bees process both
honey and sugar into brood food, and several powerful enzymes
assure a consistent result regardless of the mix of glucose and
fructose in the nectar, sugar, or honey. If the enzymes did not do this,
bees might have a difficult time raising brood on citrus honey, which
has more glucose, versus clover honey, which has less.
For
Nosema (in the bee) the bee's digestive system breaks both honey
and sucrose down into the simple sugars long before is gets anywhere
where Nosema might form, so the bee's digestive tract sees no difference.
(Your digestive system can likewise see no difference between sugar,
honey, and a potato, as all are complex carbs.)
Varroa? They don't really hang out in cells where honey or sugar
syrup would be stored, do they? No, they hang out in cells full
of the above-mentioned brood food with that consistent pH.
That just about sums it up for why the difference in pH is
"universally ignored in the beekeeping world". It is ignored because
the difference really
just doesn't matter, except in the case of
overwintering, when sugar syrup wins hands down for being 100%
digestible.
> The prevailing theory on how Oxalic acid trickling works is that the
> bee's hemolymph becomes too acidic for the Varroa and they die,
> while the bees do not. So how is it helpful to feed the bees something
> that has a pH in the range that most of their enemies...
No, that's an inference that is absolutely wrong.
The bee will digest the carbohydrates. The pH of the bee's hemolymph
will not change as a result of consuming one type of feed or another,
any more than your blood will change in pH as a result of eating sugar
one hour, and honey the next. You also digest carbohydrates.
Reminds me of this summer, when wasps were going into and out of
a can of soda on a picnic table. I laughed my head off. You see,
it was DIET soda. No sugar at all. Stupid wasps.