ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because" - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 79
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, MS, USA
    Posts
    712

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    Roland, I understand the problem your seeing. Sounds like you are having an applicator problem not a chemical problem. As I se it you have a cpl of choices. I assume your state has something similar to our Bureau of Plant Industry that oversees all pesticide application. You can start raising ****** with them to try to get this under control in which case the farmer will probably ask you to get your bees off his property. Or you can work with the farmers who will work with you and move the bees away from the areas where you have consistant problems.

    It may be easier to just scream the pesticides need to go but I don't see that happening.

    Johnny
    "Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Menomonee Falls, Wis.
    Posts
    4,215

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    Mr. Lyon - Maybe I should have stated that although we have seen virus symptoms in the past, We have not seen any recently. We do not migrate, and do not have brood before April, and after September. Do the math with Randy Oliver's formulas, it makes a big difference.

    I have been dealing with Wisconsin Dept of Agriculture's Environmental Enforcement Specialists, but have been generally dismissed. I am keeping up the pressure. They do not seem to following the "Enforcement" part of their title.

    I would like to think my observations are fairly accurate. We are one of the oldest beekeeping operations in the nation, and spend alot of time in front of our hive compared to "Bee Wranglers".

    Roland Diehnelt, 5th generation commercial beekeeper
    Linden Apiary, est. 1852

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Hathaway, CA
    Posts
    82

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    I would agree with Harry on #1 and #2. I would possibly place Nosema c. as #3.. of course genetics may plays a part in susceptibility... so genetics may rank higher. But certainly have been hit with some nasty Nosema c. infections the last 2 years in some hives while others on the same pallet show no infection... I have also found that for the most part the sick hives even with treatments failed...

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Salem, Oregon
    Posts
    1,836

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    Two years ago, I went down to the Oregon State Capitol to testify about something and as I walked in the door there was a table with a couple of young ladies who asked me if I would consider signing a petition.
    I said, "Sure; what are we petitioning?"
    It was a ban on neonics. I don't remember if it was all or just one formulation.
    I picked the pen up off the table and asked, " What pesticide are you suggesting we will replace this with?"
    GREAT BIG GASP, with a horrified look on their face!!
    " Well,,,,nothing!" was their reply.
    I placed the pen back on the table.
    "We must always have a suitable, proven substitution to suggest if we are going to have a voice in such a conversation" I said.
    I have exactly ONE more hive than you.
    That makes my opinion beyond dispute!

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Herrick, SD USA
    Posts
    6,665

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    Quote Originally Posted by Roland View Post
    Mr. Lyon - Maybe I should have stated that although we have seen virus symptoms in the past, We have not seen any recently. We do not migrate, and do not have brood before April, and after September. Do the math with Randy Oliver's formulas, it makes a big difference.

    I have been dealing with Wisconsin Dept of Agriculture's Environmental Enforcement Specialists, but have been generally dismissed. I am keeping up the pressure. They do not seem to following the "Enforcement" part of their title.

    I would like to think my observations are fairly accurate. We are one of the oldest beekeeping operations in the nation, and spend alot of time in front of our hive compared to "Bee Wranglers".

    Roland Diehnelt, 5th generation commercial beekeeper
    Linden Apiary, est. 1852
    Hope you didnt take my post as a challenge but rather as a search for data. My take is viruses are getting to be more and more pervasive and an increasing threat to beekeepers. This fall I got APHIS results back from a sampling they took in early August. Admittedly a small sample with only 8 hives (out of 48) in a single location but I found the results quite interesting. It showed my results in the bottom 30% in terms of varroa infestation at only .6 mites per hundred bees and no detectable nosema levels. However they tested for 7 major viruses found in the US. There were negative readings for 3 of the 7 but I was in the 30th percentile for ABPV, the 40th percentile for DWV but most alarmingly in the 70th percentile for VDV (varroa destructor virus) and the 90th percentile for LSV2 (Lake Sinai Virus 2), similar to chronic bee paralysis virus. Given that I have seen some higher than normal fall losses despite not having particularly high mite numbers I'm coming around to the point of view that because mites transfer virus quite easily, even comparatively low mite numbers can translate to poor bee health if viral readings are high.
    I re-read the ABJ article you are referencing. Yes, some good points are made but I would take issue with the statement that severe losses started in 2006. My take is that is when bee losses got publicized and mostly because of who it affected and the steps taken to make the story get picked up by the mainstream media. By far my worst losses were in the early 90's when varroa first impacted our operation but but bad bee loss years have randomly hit for the 40+ years I have been in the business though they have certainly become worse since varroa showed up. If I hadn't read about it on the internet I wouldn't have even been aware that anything remarkable began in 2006.
    "People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Waupaca, WI USA
    Posts
    28

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    First of all, I am not an expert and I have not formed an opinion but I think the following is interesting.

    I had a number of beekeepers in Wisconsin report to me that they saw heavy losses in late summer that were not due to mites or viruses. Having said that, my experience and that of some beekeepers local to me is that i saw some losses very much attributed to mites/viruses.

    The beekeepers reporting their non-mite related losses to me were very convinced they had control of their mites. They are very good commercial beekeepers with many years of experience. They suspected Dicamba. My very competent ag extension agent was very quick to pull in experts from the State of Wisconsin. Of course, I heard the typical, "herbicides do not harm bees." but they confirmed very little Dicamba being used in Wisconsin (3% of soybeans are Dicamba "ready").

    However, on subsequent discussions with one of the commercial beekeepers he said he saw so many more spray rigs in the fields in late summer. This reminded me of a conversation that I had with a soybean grower who was fighting white mold. He said it was widespread because of all the rain we received. I went back to my ag agent and one of the comments he forwarded to me is interesting (copied below). Did fungicides cause many beeyards to crash in the late summer/early fall?

    Here are his comments:

    "This observation might be linked to the increased level of white mold in soybeans this season. We were predicting high pressure and folks were likely spraying more than in the past. Ratings of white mold around the state indicate that there was a lot of pressure out there. This likely means that yes, more sprayers where probably out spraying fungicide to target this disease during the soybean bloom period.

    With that said, I know there have been some studies that have examined fungicide and bee colony interactions. Many of these have been done in fruit and veg crops and Im less familiar with studies in row crops, and specifically soybean. Do honey bees forage at all in soybean? Im not an entomologist and my understanding is that they dont. So as far as picking up soybean pollen with fungicide residue, Im not sure that this would be a widespread issue. However, off target direct application to honey bees flying through would be plausible. Im again just not sure how many bees would be flying through soybeans relative to other crops like fruits and veggies. I have cced Bryan Jensen and Russ Groves here who would better be able to comment on the insect-side of things here.

    Finally, there would be several specific products being used for white mold control. It would be pyraclostrobin, boscalid, prothioconazole, and trifloxystrobin. Not much has been published on these specific fungicides and bee health, as these are likely used more in row crop production. However, their effects on bee health might be similar to published studies, if they are making their way to the colony.

    Hoping the entomologists might have more comments on the level of fungicide exposure that we might see in soybean.

    Damon

    --
    Damon L. Smith, Ph.D.
    Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist
    Field Crops Pathology

    University of Wisconsin-Madison
    Department of Plant Pathology
    1630 Linden Drive
    Madison, WI 53706-1598"

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Miami, Manitoba, Canada
    Posts
    9,340

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    Quote Originally Posted by HarryVanderpool View Post
    Two years ago, I went down to the Oregon State Capitol to testify about something and as I walked in the door there was a table with a couple of young ladies who asked me if I would consider signing a petition.
    I said, "Sure; what are we petitioning?"
    It was a ban on neonics. I don't remember if it was all or just one formulation.
    I picked the pen up off the table and asked, " What pesticide are you suggesting we will replace this with?"
    GREAT BIG GASP, with a horrified look on their face!!
    " Well,,,,nothing!" was their reply.
    I placed the pen back on the table.
    "We must always have a suitable, proven substitution to suggest if we are going to have a voice in such a conversation" I said.
    Exactly !!!!!

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Menomonee Falls, Wis.
    Posts
    4,215

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    Jim- no offense taken. I would rather you be brutal with me and find an answer than be P.C. and let this continue.

    If the viruses are transmitted by the mites, and the mites are transmitted by the drones, what if there where very few drones in the hive?

    Pegorsch- sounds like my symptoms. Thank you.

    To the poster that suggested giving up - you don't get 165 years experience by giving up. Besides, Germans are too stubborn to give up.

    Crazy Roland

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    335

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    No doubt the number one problems we have is mites. Having said that I do have a concern about the use of pesticides. This year we had a lot of people using insecticides in our area. I asked several what they were spraying for. One of the common answers was moths this year. When I asked them what numbers were showing up in their tests most times the answer was they did not test and had no idea if they were having a problem. They said it was less than $9.00 an acre to spray so they considered it cheap insurance so I sprayed. Our local Arial sprayer even had some spraying for grasshoppers. You had to look to find a hopper in our area but some sprayed for them anyway.

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Butler Co, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    486

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    Not trying to turn this into a pesticide thread, but may be useful info.

    I realize that I'm am possibly too small scale to post here, but I had 1000 acres of dicamba soybeans this year, and had half my 60 hive amongst them, all doing well. Many of which I sprayed dicamba within 10 feet of the hives, during daytime hours, as the label requires. I can attest that there were never any indications that it caused a problem inside my hives, or with my foraging force. I did however notice that there was a correlation between queen returns and my spray activity. Not sure if perhaps I mighta sprayed/killed the queens with chems, or if maybe they were refused entry because they smelled. Might've even had a case of lost their way home, or unrelated, I suppose.

    25% of my hives were along fields that got sprayed via airplane for moths, most were sprayed with prevathon, which is supposed to be more bee friendly. It wasn't a year where much fungicide was needed, but a few do include it if they have to spray for moths. All hives produced and grew well.
    Hindsight is 20/10, not 20/20...
    After the fact, I always know what didn't work.

  12. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Herrick, SD USA
    Posts
    6,665

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    Just to be clear. The beekeeping world is a large and diverse one. In no way am i saying that pesticides don't have any detrimental effect to bees. I've experienced lots of pesticide damage and losses to bees through the years including a few pretty serious events in the almond orchards in recent years involving (allegedly) fungicides and most any beekeeper doing much pollination has their own stories as well. Where I diverge from some is in blaming any unexplained losses on virtually undetectable trace amounts of neonics without any solid data to support such claims. Clearly neonics are pretty toxic and can easily do damage to a hive but just as clearly many beekeepers consistently raise very strong hives sitting alongside such fields. I claim no scientific expertise but my common sense tells me to first look for the most obvious solution to any problem and in the case of bee health I will continue to believe that the varroa/virus issue is the "elephant in the room".
    "People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

  13. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,477

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    Dicamba is a herbicide and my first thought is that herbicides do not significantly affect honey bees.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicamba
    Zone 3b. If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got!

  14. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Miami, Manitoba, Canada
    Posts
    9,340

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    The other elephant in the room...test your hive products for chem residues, Amitraz compounds dwarf anything farmers put out there.

    But we dont wAnt to talk about that, because if we were stripped the opportunity to use amitraz right now, wed see huge economic losses

  15. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Menomonee Falls, Wis.
    Posts
    4,215

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    Ian - did that. Less than 20 PPM coumophos, which we never used. It must have come from the wax foundation.

    Jim - I agree that mites/viruses are deadly, but the last time the Inspector stopped by, he could not find any.

    I have contacted the Author, and invited her here to comment.

    Crazy Roland

  16. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Herrick, SD USA
    Posts
    6,665

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    Quote Originally Posted by Roland View Post
    Ian - did that. Less than 20 PPM coumophos, which we never used. It must have come from the wax foundation.

    Jim - I agree that mites/viruses are deadly, but the last time the Inspector stopped by, he could not find any.

    I have contacted the Author, and invited her here to comment.

    Crazy Roland
    The big questions here would be when did you test and how did you test? I've done ether rolls in the spring when queens are actively expanding the brood nest and been hard pressed to find a mite. Try that same test in the fall with little to no brood in the hives and I'd be shocked to find a 1/2 cup sample that yields nary a mite.
    "People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

  17. #36

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    As I reread the piece in the ABJ, I was unable to determine who the author is. Is it obvious and I overlooked it?
    Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. - Emerson

  18. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    10,409

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    i don't see it either dan. the piece is in the 'news notes' section and does not list the author. i notice that only 1 out of 8 pieces in that section list the author.

    you might be able to get an answer at:

    [email protected]
    Last edited by squarepeg; 12-15-2017 at 08:36 AM. Reason: typo

  19. #38
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA, USA
    Posts
    5,486

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    Jim, what's your opinion on VDV, never really heard of it until now, but some quick reading shows it's very similar to DWV and maybe be just a variant as they're 85% similar in genome. I started reading the article as I got my subscription renewed.

  20. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Herrick, SD USA
    Posts
    6,665

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    Quote Originally Posted by JRG13 View Post
    Jim, what's your opinion on VDV, never really heard of it until now, but some quick reading shows it's very similar to DWV and maybe be just a variant as they're 85% similar in genome. I started reading the article as I got my subscription renewed.
    Its the first I've heard of it as well and ya, its got me concerned. The thing with viruses is what the heck do you do about it aside from trying to keep your mite numbers low. Just one of those things that has to run its course I suppose.
    "People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

  21. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Menomonee Falls, Wis.
    Posts
    4,215

    Default Re: ABJ article, page 1148 , "It is the Mites because"

    Jim - The supers where on, populations where up.

    By contacting the Editor of ABJ, I learned the author and have contacted her. I invited her to join us. I will ask her if I may divulge her name.

    Crazy Roland

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •