Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Treat or not to treat

51K views 172 replies 40 participants last post by  sqkcrk 
#1 ·
Anyone ever have a high mite count and let it go and the hive was ok?
I have two nice healthy hives that have a high mite count and theres bee on the ground around the hive that have signs of DWV and i don't know if i should treat them with APIGARD or see if the the bee's can live with them . I have 17 hives right now and i'm sure some will make through winter. Any comments would be great i'm at across road TREAT OR NOT TO TREAT my hives seem healthy but this is only year 3 for me as a bee keeper and the first year was a floop.
We have a goldenrod flow about to kick in and the one hive with well over 50mites in 24hours has ahoney super one thats 2.3s filled and i don't want to treat with honey on the hive i'm not sure if i want t treat at all but i'd hate to had them die out . What would everyone do if you were me? Thank you.
 
#38 ·
This is how I treat for mites. Either that or just squish the queen and let them rear another. It is the break in the brood cycle that will help. I never use chemicals in the hive. I have done it twice and both times the hives have rebounded to be just fine.
 
#3 ·
I was in the same dilemma not to long ago and chose to treat. Treating I believe saved my hives and I haven't had to treat since and they are doing very well. I did a 24 hour mite drop count yesterday on the hive that was infested the worst and had a mite drop of 7. I had many bees with deformed wings and I don't see any now.

I'm sure you will get lot's of conflicting opinions on this topic but treating was the path I chose and I'm glad I did. Personally I used Hopguard because it seemed less harsh than some of the others and it worked great.

for the record I only have 3 hives right now and in my 2nd year beekeeping.
 
#4 ·
You're right in that your chance of losing all those hives is almost nil. That said, the only way to know if they can "live with them" is to let them try. It's all in how upset you'll be next year if you lose those hives. This is tough, but try to think to next year, and if you lose, say 7 hives, and have 10 remaining, will you be kicking yourself for not treating? Or will you be saying, "I made the better decision because I have stronger bees, even though I only have 10 hives."

I treat w/MAQS. They have some drawbacks. But it's once and done and the honey can stay on.
 
#5 ·
If you don't treat them, and if they survive and recover, you will have mite resistant bees.
You also may very well not only have a dead hive, but a possible "Mite Bomb" when the mites migrate to a nearby hive if the hive dies.

I'd suggest a soft treatment such as a sugar shake. Have a look at what Randy Oliver says about his surprise at the effectiveness of sugar as a treatment in the articles on varroa treatment:
scientificbeekeeping.com
 
#31 ·
WOW.

I didn't expect such emotional responses to a suggestion to try soft treatments first.

Granted, my response to one of the posters on this thread anthropomorphism of bees was a bit extreme; my intent was to prompt what I perceived as a somewhat condescending post addressing what I'm sure that poster considered a morally corrupt practice of not treating to consider that there might be moral considerations beyond the infested hive...ie, preventing larger scale hardship on the species because mite susceptible genetics remain in the gene pool.

Mark:
My reference to concerns about short term financial interest was in no way intended as denigrating. Failure to maintain short term solvency is a short step from bankruptcy.

Segregating a portion one's hives and not treating in order to have hundreds and in the case of some outfits thousands or tens of thousands of hives adapted to survive without treatment is an expensive process and would take years to accomplish.

Once accomplished, there would be far fewer males in the drone pool distributing genes that require treatment.


"Short term financial interests? What is short term when outfits have been able to stay viable in business since 1986?"

How much do you spend on treatments in a year?
I suspect the amount is not insubstantial.
The savings of not treating over one man's lifetime may or may not come out on the profit side of the ledger.

But if we think generationally, it is cheaper to take the loss and convert to non treatment.

We'd have bees that took care of mite on their own and aren't dependent for survival on us.

On the other hand, I think guys like Kirk Webster will tell you you might expect 90% losses short term by not treating.

Looking out for short term financial interests may be folly in the long run, costing a good deal over time, and leaving bees dependent on human treatment intervention, but it keeps the lights on, the wife happy and the kids tuition paid.

The folly is in leaving the situation status quo, so that three generations from now our [collective] great grandkids are still worried about mites in their bees.

Or managing one's bees based on emotion rather than wisdom. (I'll admit that my second post was couched in very emotional in an attempt to persuade a poster whom I perceived was motivated by emotion to treat to consider alternatives, both to his perspective and protocol, and was a bit extreme.)

Personally, so long as my living expenses are not dependent on my hive count, I'll treat as little as I possibly can.
But you can bet that if some other stressor compromises a hive's health and a line of bees whose genes I work to develop is in danger of perishing without treatment, I'll seriously consider doing so, weighing the whole cost (contaminated comb on one hand, for example, and loss of the work that went into them and income potential from them on the other).

"How does the successful treatment use of a commercial beekeeper effect you?"

Substantially.
The decisions of a single commercial guy can have a greater effect on what genetics are or aren't present in the drone pool than MANY hobbyists with one to ten hives.

don't think that commercial beeks are fools, or wicked, greedy, bad guys.

When assert that it's folly to not treat because of short term financial interests, I'm talking about us as a whole community not coming up with a pragmatic, practical path to something more sustainable long term, spmething wise ofr our progeny, and getting off the tread mill of spending for treatments.

I'm not intending at all to say a guy is foolish for protecting the business that provides for his family.

Respectfully,
B
 
#6 ·
If we treated ourselves like our bee's would we still be here. I would not, when I had a heart attach I went to the doctor, I don't understand why we do not let the doctor treat our bee's when they are ill? I treat mine , they are dependent on me just like a dog. I do not treat for the sake of treating but I do before risking a whole hive
 
#9 ·
I treat mine , they are dependent on me just like a dog.
Bees are not people.
They are livestock.
Whether you believe it is nature or God who did it, selection is the process established to ensure that species as a whole remain healthy, suffer the least from disease or parasites like mites, and continue to exist rather than become extinct.

When one chooses to select for mite resistance by allowing a susceptible hive to succumb to mite pressure, the honeybees species is strengthened, there are fewer susceptible genes in the gene pool, and fewer colonies suffer.

It prolongs the suffering of the the species due to mites and is inhumane to interfere in this selection process.

The primary reasons people do so are emotional and financial - no beekeeper wants to lose the profit a hive will generate by letting it succumb, and he may not survive financially should he do so on a broad scale.
Manufacturers and sellers of the insecticides we use in our hives for mite control also have a huge financial interest in preserving the treatment paradigm.

Some look at bees as though they are people, and not recognizing that they are promoting the suffering to the species as a whole, and, as the writer above acknowledges, making them dependent on men for their welfare and unable to care for themselves as they have for eons, feel it is compassionate to put insecticides in our insect colonies.

To do so to protect short term financial interests, or out of not understanding the damage it does to honeybee species as a whole, is folly.

We owe the bees better than that.

Respectfully,
B
 
#7 ·
I have never lost a hive to mites in four years and never have treated with anything. I use plain old Italian bees, nothing special. I see several DWV bees on the ground daily when I look for them. I don't do mite counts. My bees winter fine and become boomers with 125lb. average the next season. My bees couldn't be doing much better in my area, so the mites are not an issue as far as I'm concerned. Obviously, nobody wants to watch their bees dwindle down and die off for any reason. I am committed to producing a treatment free product for my customers and they expect it, and it will stay that way even if mites become a problem in the future. I know for a fact that "certain" hives of bees will develop a resistance, tolerance, whatever you want to call it, to the mites if given the chance. I have bees that show hygenic behavior, I see it going on regularly in all my hives. They weren't always this way though, without my help they learned a way to handle the mites in order to keep the colony going, thats all I can say. You may have bees like mine, if losing everything isn't everything then why not give it a chance and find out. John
 
#25 ·
I have never lost a hive to mites in four years and never have treated with anything.
What have you lost them to?
I have no problem with folks going treatment free. It’s important, in my opinion, that they have a good understanding of the potential consequences. Every stress faced by a colony of bees is exacerbated by mites. Parasitized bees are weaker bees. Whether its tracheal mites, bacterial or viral diseases, small hive beetles, wax moths or whatever. Mites add to the pressure and increase, significantly, the likelihood that the colony will fail.
If you understand and accept this and want to go treatment free, I say fine.
 
#8 ·
Ok so i geuss i won't treat for my goal was to to biuld a better bee thats why i have 17 hives and at the beging of may i only had 3 i bought 3 nucs and the rest was swarms and what i made {splits} so now i have my stock and i can play. My goal now is to get all hives up to par for winter.
I really non't care about honey sales and i've dumped a pile of cash in to this hobby that for sure but i love beekeeping and have nice bee yards .
I've learned so much the last 3 years and as of now my bee's are strong and doing well we'll see how no treat go's.
Plus i ordered APIGARD off BETTER BEE and the called a left a message saying the computer took a dump and they lost my c.card numbers and to call and they could get the order out so i took that as a sign that i should go the no treat rout and i do want strong bee's. I'll be glad i don't have to buy bee's again i sure did learn to make bee ya. Thank you.
 
#17 ·
i took that as a sign that i should go the no treat rout and i do want strong bee's. I'll be glad i don't have to buy bee's again i sure did learn to make bee ya. Thank you.
So, does that mean you aren't going to treat at all? Not even after the honey supers come off? Let us know how that works out next Spring. And if you had orders your Apigaurd from Dadant's of Waverly, NY you would have had it two days aftrer ordering. Would you have used it?

Were you me, sorta what you asked in your first Post, you would determine what your mite load is and use that to decide your course of action. Or, you would know that your hive has varroa mites and you would treat.

Live and let die works. I'm glad you can afford to use it.
 
#10 ·
Here's how I look at it. If you want to kill mites, kill mites. If you don't want to kill mites, then don't kill mites. The bees may or may not survive either way. As a genetics major, it's too early to tell with this pest what is the best course of action. You have to look at the end goal.... do we want mite tolerance, mite resistance, or immunity? Looking at it ecologically is not treating and harboring a population of pests smart?? People have the one sided notion.... the bees will adapt.... what if the mite adapts more?? Treating or not treating you're still putting selection pressure on the mite to overcome. I don't think there's a right and wrong decision. I mean, if i treat and get 100% kill and the guy next to me is treatment free and harboring mites.... whose the problem in this picture? At the same time, treating needs to be done correctly and you really should try products with differing MoA's so resistance isn't built.
 
#11 ·
Bees aren't human they are livestock... Treating them would be inhumane? Let natural selection take place? Hmmm let's not treat them humane but treat them as livestock. Or if you are building a better bee get a program of different bee stock together and cross and cull. If a hive has hygienic behavior it cleans mites off and infected brood out it may have a smaller population because of this but it wont have high mite numbers. As you might be able to discern you can use IPM and build a better bee if you are breeding and introducing stock and doing mite counts. Raising queens breed to her brothers won't get you far and hoping a wild "survivor" is out there to add its genes to the pool is well hope and not much of a program.

Best of luck whatever you decide
 
#12 ·
Your goal of selecting mite resistant bees is admirable, however from a breeding standpoint you are fooling yourselves. I am a corn breeder and I figure I have to look at 20-30,000 corn hybrids to find one really good one. What would be my chance of finding that one hybrid if I only looked at 17? Virtually impossible. Unless you have the resources to select among thousands of queens over many years, your chance of finding mite resistance is nil. If your colonies survive it is more due to luck (weather, etc.) rather than the genetics of the bees. Ah, if breeding were only that easy....of course if it was I wouldn't have a job:)
 
#13 ·
Not treating is considered irresponsible by many people on this forum, I have been chastised many times before for suggesting someone not treat their bees. It really is an individual decision, one that you need to be prepared to live with. My decision to not treat is rooted in wanting to produce and sell a product that I can say has not been exposed to contamination from substances that should not be there. Others will say that it is more important for the beekeeping industry to use treatments to keep the bees alive to preserve the species, to preserve investment, or it is the humane thing to do as bees are livestock or are like our pets. I wish I had the absolute correct moral answer or correct moral choice for treating or not treating if you know what I mean. Or are we over thinking this whole thing. I just hope that the no treatment guy is not looked upon as a "problem" by the other people. I certainly don't harbor any negative feelings for those who choose to treat, I just wish they were on my side because I think in the long run the mite problem will be solved by the bees. We may never be without mites, but hopefully we won't be without honey bees either. John
 
#15 ·
Not treating is considered irresponsible by many people on this forum
More than agree! I find very disturbing that people so resistant to learn something different/new. It is my opinion that US commercial beekeeping approach actually DOES create the problem. Numerous bees lost over the years is a result of unchanged methods used and promoted by many commercial beekeepers. Thus, this approach is not credible to me. My bees are survivors, I posted in some thread already: my large happy beehive has a constant 24h mite count of 50. My other beehive, which is not doing well has 7 mites count. I could trace those two colonies for 3-4 years (11 mo with me). They never were treated and they are very prolific. Mite counts must be normalized per bee, otherwise, it is meaningless since in the large hive, we have more bees...
I wish I had the absolute correct moral answer or correct moral choice for treating or not treating if you know what I mean. Or are we over thinking this whole thing. I just hope that the no treatment guy is not looked upon as a "problem" by the other people. I certainly don't harbor any negative feelings for those who choose to treat, I just wish they were on my side because I think in the long run the mite problem will be solved by the bees. We may never be without mites, but hopefully we won't be without honey bees either.
Agree!
Officially, bees are a livestock. But in reality, they are wild animals/insects - they managed to escape domestication for 10 thousand years! They have very sophisticated genetics, they are not such easy as a corn. And even corn's genetic is very complicated. We had an arguments on this in bee-club. After that I read a lot of literature regarding bee-genetic. It is very sophisticated and not much known. What I know for sure is that any "good" gene may be "fixed" in genom by natural selection (old Darwin). It needs to go through sexual reproduction, many cycles. Annual requeening completely screw up the sexual cycle, thus - not much success in selection. Also, drones are equally important as queens. The whole commercial approach to minimize drones breaks reproduction cycle again. The natural way of reproduction for bees are swarming - swarming suppression again breaks the cycle! Sergey
 
#14 ·
hilreal,

I don't consider my bees success over four years to be luck. Were not talking about one colony here, I have many more than that. Once again, I have had mites for four years, bees with DWV every year in front of every hive on the ground. I have been told more than a few times that once you see DWV your hives are on the brink of collapse and won't make the winter. This is not what will happen in every case, so how do you explain their continued survival and prosperity, by saying it is luck, the weather, etc. How does the weather have to change for me to see the mites take control? What does the etc. refer to? Just because you and I don't know how the bees adapt doesn't make it highly unlikely that they do. John
 
#18 ·
hilreal,

I have had mites for four years, bees with DWV every year in front of every hive on the ground.
I would be very interested to know what kind of honey production you are getting from these hives.

Also, are other beekeepers in your area seeing an increase in DWV with your hives in their foraging area?
 
#16 ·
i had strong colonies through august last year. 60 or so. i made a good honey crop which i pulled in early september. by the end of september i had less than 30 colonies and by spring i had 8. i had planned to treat but we got a long cold snap late september. using hopguard september 1st this year. justin
 
#21 ·
I have 14 years with bees, but this is my first year back in since mites. Yes, I'm old.
As one trying to pull 45 new hives through the winter. I've researched various treatment and non treatment programs, but see nothing that makes a dramatic difference given the money and time required.
I think the drought here has helped keep the mites down for now. I haven't treated, am open to it, but also afraid I'll kill half the queens I just put in.
Since MAQS is formic acid, I'd be inclined save a few bucks and treat with formic acid if and when I see the need.
 
#27 ·
As usual, this conversation has degraded down to "you're the problem", or "you do what you want and I'll do what I want." In a perfect world, which this isn't, we would not have to contend with mites, agreed? So, is my hope for a miteless beekeeping industry someday unrealistic? In reality, even if every last beekeeper treated we would still have mites to some extent, even if that meant that the mites adapted to every treatment we throw at them along the way. Also in reality, even if every last beekeeper did not treat in the short term, we would certainly have more mites than we currently do, but the possibility of the bees adapting a resistance long term would be greater than it is now. I agree that we don't want to see another downswing in worldwide honey bee populations to the point where they are nearly extinct. So should I give up the hope in a better bee that can handle mites through non treatment, or treat and forever have bees that depend on us to handle the mites for them? This is the basic question that I would like to see answered here. John
 
#28 ·
As usual, this conversation has degraded down to "you're the problem", or "you do what you want and I'll do what I want."
The only implication of fault that I've read in this thread is when treatment free proponents suggest that commercial beekeepers are the problem. Is that what you're referring to?
Instead of 'you do what you want and I'll do what I want', what do you think it should be?
 
#33 ·
Beregondo,
Yes, I tried that. Not on purpose. Went from 732 down to 100 in less than 9 months. Looked at my options, too complex to go into here, and decided to fight mites instead of succumbing. I wanted to make a living keeping bees.

I would like you to talk to a friend of mine who has over the last 5 years grown from 1500 or so to 3700 colonies and suggest to him that he should do as you suggest. It's fine for you, but doesn't fit the business model of a commercial beekeeper. No one of size who wants to exploite, for lack of a betyter word, all avenues of beekeeping to make a living. He is doing quite well. Thriving. So are his bees.

Steve Taber suggested just what you do and in 30 years, he predicted, our bees will tolerate mite presence. But, we will have no commercial beekeepers, he said. So, how is modern agriculture supposed to handle that? We saw how. They will import pollination from Australia.

I believe that what you are supposing is a nice idea. Just not practical in todays world. Not for those dependent on bees.

I think we understand each other. Let's part in Peace.
 
#36 ·
This is a classic topic on Beesource that naturally brings up the finger pointing.

Glock, I can't be you. I can only be me and I don't treat. With one to three hives in my possession it isn't going to change the world of bees. Possibly if my little apiary builds some resistance to mites it may help the gene pool around me that will help some local people. If it doesn't my bees will just die. If you are a local person that treats my increased farm of mites will not affect you because you are already treating. I don't know enough about genetics but I don't see how a neighbor that treats affects me. As far as I know treating for a disease does not pass on a resistance or lack of to the offspring. I am more concerned about the treatment of food sources for the bees and myself over long periods of time. That is the stress I worry about. These chemicals or more permanent than what we were led to believe.
 
#37 ·
I don't know enough about genetics but I don't see how a neighbor that treats affects me.
That guy down the road who treats is nurturing a bunch of mite sensitive bees. His drones spread those genes into your mite resistant bees. So the theory goes.
 
#39 ·
Let me also say this; I do not have a full time job doing this (yet; I am working towards it). I do believe that breaking the brood cycle is a treatment just not a chemical. I think it is important that we treat our bees; I just provide a product that has no chemicals or antibiotics and that is what my customers pay a higher price for.

Do I lose honey production from doing this? Yes

Do I lose bees from doing this? Not yet, but it has not been a real problem so far.

The problem as I see it and I run into in a lot of discussions (both old and younger); is simply, the unwillingness to try something else. I would not suggest that a commercial operation stop treatment, which would be foolish. What I suggest is that instead of saying chemicals are the only cost effective treatment method; can we open our minds to a possibility of another way? In my case; I save time by just squishing a queen. I lose honey by doing so, but I also get a higher price for the end product. In my case; I am able to come out the same or a little ahead, in the end as if I would have treated.

There is no blanket statement that can be done for all; however anyone who feels that the industry standard or status quo is the best option might need to rethink their own arrogance. I will never have the answers and will always listen to suggestions. The suggestions must be able to be proven; either with numbers that show the risks or with proof from experience, not just simply an opinion.

I think both the hobbyist and the commercial beekeeper are important and as with other things (faith) people need to stop attacking and fighting. It is walking hand in hand with your brother (or sister) that will find you the most success.
 
#40 ·
Well, just have to toss in my 2 cents.... In the year I spent researching bees before re-entering the craft, and in the years since, I've discovered a truth - if you bought or acquired treated bees, you have to treat or they will succumb to the mites. If you bought treatment free bees, don't treat. That is the route I've taken for about 7 years now. If you obtain a swarm, and put them in your treatment free apiary, probably even odds they'll survive treatment free. But I don't treat at all, and won't treat swarms. Want to maintain the integrity of my operation.

The key is to do what you're comfortable with, but do it rationally, with your long term goals in mind. And just because someone does it differently than you, it doesn't mean they're wrong. Or right.
Regards,
Steven
 
#41 · (Edited)
To all people who got offended by my statement regarding commercial beekeeping.

First, I apologize for generalization. I had no intention to hurt anybody personally. My statement was mainly not about beekeepers but about traditional beekeeping practice used in commercial beekeeping. The practice has been developed before Varroa mites. Thus it had no tools against Varroa. "Treatment" (chemical) was urgently introduced to mitigate the problem. The chemical treatment (any) normally stimulates the resistance to the treatment (Varroa resisted to the treatment). So, everybody who treat - actually is working hard to produce more resistant Varroa mites. It is just biology. It reminds to me the story with penicillin, when people unwisely used it and produced penicillin-resistant strains of bacteria. When penicillin did not work, another antibiotic was invented and soon we got resistant strain. Using this approach, we already developed the strains of bacteria, which are deadly - there is no treatment for them available now. Right now, people are dying from bacteria, which originally was sensitive to the ordinary penicillin, but not anymore. It seems to me, commercial approach is heading in the same direction demanding more and more "treatments" (chemical) and making more and more resistant mites!

Another aspect of this is the bees. Any chemical treatment weaks the body and suppresses the natural resistance. Treatment technically is a poison. You are trying to establish the dose, which is deadly to mites and not for bees. But low dose of poison is still a poison and affects bees biology. So, one, actually do a weird selection - bees tolerate the poison and do not tolerate the mites. Is it sounds like reverse to what one wanted?

This is why I feel skeptical about "traditional" commercial approach in Varroa time - it is just against biology. It was reasonably good before Varroa. It needs to be adjusted to new reality. Chemical treatment just creates the super-Varroa. Treatment must be a temporary solution - you could not keep human on antibiotics all the time. Russian says - there is nothing more permanent than temporary solution. It is exactly about Varroa - treatment was used as an emergency remedy at the beginning but becomes a standard now. I am against treatment to be a standard procedure. It must be an emergency remedy.

Spreading super-monster-Varroa in feral bees population is extremely bad since if bees could mitigate a normal Varroa, it does not mean that they are prepared for super-Varroa.
Sergey

PS I am using the word "treatment" meaning a chemical treatment.
 
#45 ·
This is why I feel skeptical about "traditional" commercial approach in Varroa time - it is just against biology. It was reasonably good before Varroa. It needs to be adjusted to new reality. Chemical treatment just creates the super-Varroa. I am against treatment to be a standard procedure. It must be an emergency remedy.
Theoretically, what would you have people do? What do you think someone w/ 10,000 colonies should do?

"It must be an emergency remedy." How would you determine what is an emergency and then what would you use?
 
#42 ·
My guess is that like what has been stated Survival is more luck than anything else if nothing is done either with treatment or management. We normally don't have populations large enough to let natural selection work. Skilled breeders with thousands of queens to evaluate are our best hope until then I try and keep my bees alive via every means at my disposal including treating when all else fails.

I haven't seen a feral colony here in NE Mass in quite a few years :(
 
#43 ·
cerezha,
making rash thoughts about commercial or what was it, traditional ways of beekeeping and also about treating vs not treating with only 10 months under your belt...thank you.
At ten months, I could hardly think of telling others what they should do cause I was still learning, and had yet to survive a winter let alone 2 winters.

Please get some experience and then trash talk us commercials who practice "traditional beekeeping"
.
 
#44 · (Edited)
At ten months, I could hardly think of telling others what they should do cause I was still learning, and had yet to survive a winter let alone 2 winters.
Honeyshack/Tammy
Many thanks for your comment. I knew that somebody will rise this. It is not a problem. As you probably noticed, I was talking about resistance in any animals including insects. It is a general subject. I feel having 30+ years of expertise in biology (bachelor), human and animal physiology (masters) and two PH.Ds in Molecular Biology and Immunology I could express my personal opinion on this subject with full understanding that I am not an expert in traditional commercial beekeeping. I have to admit that I took commercial beekeeping classes this season, so I have an idea how it works. It is disturbing to observe people talking about "practical experience" and without any reference to basic science, genetics, physiology etc.
Please get some experience and then trash talk us commercials who practice "traditional beekeeping".
At the time I got sufficient to you experience, bees will gone if you will continue to do it your experienced way... I am sorry... could not help!

I am not trying to offend anybody, I am just trying to deliver a simple message - systematic use of ANY chemical will create a resistance not in bees, but in Varroa! Could you understand this? It is a science, not beekeeping.

By the way - I am in So Cal. We do not have a winter. I adopted bees 10 mo ago, but it is the same bees, who is in the hive for 2-3 years. They are survivor bees. In another words, each bees-colony is approximately 3 years old. In your language, it survived at least two "winters" untreated. In our neighborhoods we have total 4 colonies, who survived and doing very well for a few years already. I am new, bees are old. I apologize for any inconvenience my post could cause. Sergey
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top