Mites Have Pushed Me To The Edge... I'm Jumping

[cerezha]

Adam
I feel exactly the same - I overwhelmed by contradicted information regarding ANY aspect of bees. Being a scientist, it is very stressful (to me) to be in the position when situation is not "under control"... I learned a lot from bees already and main wisdom I got from them - "we know better"... yes, it is not acceptable to industrial beekeepers... but I am not. I am an amateur bee-enthusiast and keep bees out of curiosity and amusement by their social skills. Also, it seems to me the industrial approach is totally different from amateur. We (amateurs) could afford to pay more attention to the bees, observe them and try to help them in their own way. Industry is industry, it is all about business (no affence, but I am very bad at business)... Good luck with your bees and keep us posted. Sergey

[Oldtimer]

Not dissagreeing with anything anyone's said, it's all valid.

But a word about the "bees know best" philosophy. It's a nice little catch phrase, but that doesn't make it true.

We, especially when we are beginners, often put bees in unnatural situations, leaving the bees no recourse. An example would be somebody who takes too much honey off the hive in fall, leaves them with not enough to be liveable, then says "I don't believe in feeding the bees, I don't want any weak ones who are not survivors". I have seen that scenario or similar on beesource numerous times.

So it is with mites. Varroa mites are not natural to our honey bees. So, how would our bees know what to do about them? Point of fact, for the most part, they don't. Just watch a hive with varroa mites crawling on the bees. It's frustrating. We think, why don't they just chomp those mites? But they don't, cos they just don't know.

I often hear it said, "I don't believe in putting anything in my hive that wouldn't be there naturally". Well, varroa mites are not there naturally, we put them there.

The other thing, humans are intelligent animals. Bees are creatures of instinct. I have no problem, when seeing a problem the bees are not equiped to deal with, of applying my intelligence to help them out.

[cerezha]

Oldtimer
I agree with you. "Bees know best" is too simplistic. But my personal problem is that I feel hopeless when trying to help them. I am trying to be a good bee-host. I read approximately 100 (Yes!) books, the oldest was at least 150 years old (and still popular in England). I searched the Internet tirelessly to find answers... One example - I noticed increased "aggressiveness" in my bees after any bee-hive inspection (invasion). 95% experts (Internet, local bee-organization, a few blogs...) suggested to re-queen. I was about to do so and then just figured out that it basically means to kill the existing colony and replace it on another, supposedly better one. Wait a minute, the whole purpose of my beekeeping adventure was to preserve survivor local bees I inherit from my neighbor. If I shall kill them and replace on "proper" one, what is the point? So, I left my bees alone and, magic - after week or so, they are back to normal - very gentle and busy with their own business, so I could sit next to them and observe them - exactly what I needed! So, if I follow numerous experts suggestion to requeen, at this moment my bees will be gone... this is what I mean under "Bees know best" ... but, I totally agree with your position. Sergey

[Barry]

I have no problem, when seeing a problem the bees are not equiped to deal with, of applying my intelligence to help them out.

As long as "help them out" by default doesn't mean treat them.

[Aerindel]

The only advantage I think I have over my bees is size, strength and a wallet. I can move their hive components for them and buy them sugar. Other than that I don't think I can do all that much for them.

[Oldtimer]

Cerezha, well put.

Other than that I don't think I can do all that much for them.

Oh, there's a lot you can do for them. Wether you do or not depends on what your goals are, your personality, etc.

As long as "help them out" by default doesn't mean treat them.

Why not? Personally I have no issues treating, other than the cost and time it takes. But again, that's about a persons goals. My own goals are not to treat with anything residual, ie, I don't use anything that stays in a hive permanently. That's out of the hives that I treat, the treatment free hives get no chemical treatment, as another of my goals is to be treatment free, but first I have to make that work and I haven't been in that long enough yet to know. As per others, the mountain of conflicting info has left me rather jaded about believing what anybody ELSE claims might work for ME, I'm finding my own path.

[Barry]

Why not? Because as you said, that's your personal issue. Someone else may choose to go about it a different way that doesn't start, and may never include, treating with chems. You're following your path, I followed mine that didn't include some of the options you use. That's why default isn't going to be treatments.

[Oldtimer]

Agree fully. If somebody can make it work, all power to them.

[sqkcrk]

The only advantage I think I have over my bees is size, strength and a wallet. I can move their hive components for them and buy them sugar. Other than that I don't think I can do all that much for them.

You can obviously type and use the internet, so maybe you are trainable?

[sqkcrk]

As long as "help them out" by default doesn't mean treat them.

If there was something wrong that treating would beneficially address, why wouldn't one treat them?

[Barry]

Well I did that for many years and it was only temporary. Next time I had to do more of it or more often. Because there may be other ways to deal with what's wrong without treating. It may not be as fast acting or be a "success" in the short term, but in the longterm actually do better. I guess each of us have to make that decision and do what works for our circumstances.

[Adam Foster Collins]

...the "bees know best" philosophy. It's a nice little catch phrase, but that doesn't make it true...I have no problem, when seeing a problem the bees are not equiped to deal with, of applying my intelligence to help them out.

Oldtimer,

You're totally right in the "bee knows best" simplification. Of course, there are times, when they are in our care, when we can see issues that our efforts can easily remedy. And so we step in.

But what I'm finding - and where my present perspective is rooted - is that it once you get beyond the most obvious (ie providing water when there is none; feeding when they are starving) then one rapidly finds themselves in the land of guesswork. How well do we understand the far-reaching effects of our "help" and "intelligence"?

Take the essential oils as an example. On the surface, many people will see then as "natural" and therefore "good". But what do we really know about the chemistry of say, thyme oil? And how many of us can say with certainty that we know that the addition of thyme oil to feed isn't harming some aspect of the bee in a way that is causing harm? My guess is: not very many.

I feel like you can apply the same line of questioning to foundation, to plastics, to mineral oil, essential oils, pollen substitutes, and from there, you can move on into inter-colony trading of bees and brood, all kinds of management approaches, and on and on.

Now, this is NOT to say that any or all of that is bad or harmful. I'm not trying to criticize anyone's approach. But I am saying I do doubt that many people really know the full implications and effects of these and other practices on the bees. So when we're seeing a collapse in the bees - and issues that no one can fully understand or cure - I just feel like that point has to come to the fore.

My own position at this point, in my hobbyist situation, is that in the face of overwhelming lack of understanding, maybe the thing to do is to be as "hands off" as I can be, and to see how that goes.

Given that I'm only a few seasons in, it might be the best way to build up understanding of the bees, so that I can move gradually into more intervention with more confidence as I build my own set of experiences and beliefs. Because it seems that all beekeepers are an island of their own in a way. No one seems to fully agree.

Mike Bush points out on his site that sometimes, if you're in doubt on what to do - then it is often your best bet to do nothing. And maybe if more beginners started from there, our bees would be better off. But the reality is that most beginners begin with a set of gear and manipulations that have come from some beekeeper that 100 other beekeepers would disagree with. We've all heard an "expert" that we thought was out to lunch.

It comes down to finding a starting place.

Adam

[Michael Bush]

>If there was something wrong that treating would beneficially address, why wouldn't one treat them?

But what would be beneficially addressed in the long run by treating? You only end up with weak bees and strong enemies.

[Oldtimer]

Good points Adam and like most of your posts I follow your reasoning completely. You've made your call which direction you will go, for some this approach has worked so let's hope it does for you.

But what would be beneficially addressed in the long run by treating? You only end up with weak bees and strong enemies

Not sure that has been proven, unless by strong enemies you mean mites that are resistant to treatment. I don't think they are any more strong in any other way just because they survived treatment, in fact now they have to expend something in being resistant, they are probably weaker in other ways.

One of the few paper qualifications I have is in pest control, when I took a break from beekeeping I worked as an exterminator for several years, and it was an interesting time. Resistance is not quite as simple as it sounds. If you have a population of say, cockroaches, and the building has been treated for several years by an exterminator who always uses the same thing, you'll get resistance. So then the exterminator, if he is not very bright, adds some new chemical to his brew, and eventually you'll have a cockroach population resistant to just about everything. Then he gets fired and a new exterminator has to sort out the mess.

What happens next is a good exterminator will breed out the resistance, and it can be done. You just don't expose that population to a particular chemical for a certain number of generations, and they will lose their resistance. Then, when you finally do use that chemical, it has to be done comrehensively and thoroughly, to devastate that population and leave few / no survivors. Then next time, a different product again is used. So a good exterminator will manage the resistance of the cockroach population and ensure that every time he does a treatment, they will be susceptable to whatever it is he uses that time.

This approach can be used with any pest insect, and I see no reason why varroa mites should be any different. I don't think mite resistance need be feared, nor will it be the end of the world.

[Michael Bush]

>Not sure that has been proven, unless by strong enemies you mean mites that are resistant to treatment. I don't think they are any more strong in any other way just because they survived treatment, in fact now they have to expend something in being resistant, they are probably weaker in other ways.

Mites and microbes. They have to have both resistance to the treatment and be able to reproduce fast enough to make up the losses to the treatments.

[Oldtimer]

The suggestion is treated mites can reproduce faster? Doubt there is any cause and effect relationship here, the lifecycle between the two is the same. However further debate on that would be better in a different thread.

[Aerindel]

You can obviously type and use the internet, so maybe you are trainable?

Those skills aren't very useful to bees. Most of what I have learned on the internet about bees has been to not listen to what I have read on the internet about bees.

But what would be beneficially addressed in the long run by treating? You only end up with weak bees and strong enemies

If this isn't true it would make mites the first species known to man that becomes weaker through treatment.


Every other species we have poisoned as grown stronger. Every human pest, parasite and virus that wasn't totally eradicated in one fell swoop has grown stronger than it was pre-treatment. With a couple exceptions all the old diseases that we supposedly cured are all coming back worse than ever, why would it be any different for the bees?

We're just lucky that mites aren't evolving that fast. We have bacteria now that can develop multiple antibiotic resistances in a matter of hours.

We would probably end up with stronger bees by using pesticide on the bees and feeding the mites than the other way around.

If you ever want to read a really interesting little book on the war on parasites check this out:

http://www.amazon.com/New-Guinea-Tap.../dp/0393304264

Be warned though, its pretty depressing. It shows how the vast majority of the time we try to improve the health of a population we make things much worse. Even when you can successful treat one parasite it almost always turns out that the original parasite was keeping something even worse in check.

This approach can be used with any pest insect, and I see no reason why varroa mites should be any different.

This approach hasn't worked with any pest, but I agree, I don't see any reason why varroa mites should be different.

The science of resistance is extremely simple in the long run.

Evolution rewards survivors. Any treatment that kills the weaker members of any species will make that species stronger, which pretty much means that any treatment that doesn't kill 100% of the treated individuals before they can breed makes that species stronger.

Even if your treatments are reducing the members of that species they are still becoming stronger and someday will overcome your treatment and if you ever stop treating your not just dealing with the original pest, your dealing with something stronger than it ever was.

[Oldtimer]

Aerindel your whole post is bad science.

[cerezha]

It is normal science - the mechanism of resistance described above is proper. Bush is also right - creatures with very short reproductive cycle - adapted to treatments (whatsoever) quicker. Real champion in it is bacteria, but small insects also quick. In contrast, reproductive cycle of bees is from one queen to another queen, a few years - thus, mites will adapt x1000 quicker... Bees are ancient slow adaptable organism. Sergey

[Aerindel]

Aerindel your whole post is bad science.

I didn't exactly invent these ideas.

Its really basic science, available in any biology book.

I may be new to bees but I am not new to science. This is evolution at its simplest and there are many many examples of it happening in many species, including our own. I really don't see why bees and their parasites would act any differently from all other organisms in the world.

But I would happily discuss any problems you have with the science I presented. I'm not a trained science teacher so there is a chance I didn't present the concept properly and It was after midnight when I made the post, maybe I'll look at this in the morning and wonder what the heck I was thinking.

Or better yet if there is biology teacher on this forum he can explain it more precisely to the both of us.