treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread - Page 27
Page 27 of 29 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 LastLast
Results 521 to 540 of 574
  1. #521
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    10,038

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by squarepeg View Post
    msl, please provide a reference for the graph in post #507.
    Thanks for asking for that Squarepeg.

    In this internet age of over information, when stuff is shared, it really does need a reference, to enable proper scrutiny of both context, and source.

    A reputable information sharing site like Beesource could do well to put more emphasis on requiring refences to be supplied with certain types of data.
    "Every viewpoint, is a view from a point." - Solomon Parker

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #522
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern Lower Michigan, USA
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    So far, and no suprize, small cell is lacking... 64% losses vs sub 20%
    Attachment 50879

    from: https://lopezuribelab.com/comb/
    This is of course My Opinion, This study is not really all that meaningful to me.
    1) Show me who keeps bees like this , 3 ways to manage 300 hives in one apairy, IE not really a snapshot of the typical set up.
    2) Let me pick where the 100 of each hive come from and I "can" make the results be what ever I want. Ok so some small cell is doing good some is not, some treated can do good some loose all thier hives, so again, when we go out and "pick" 100 hives it matters from where they come. Who treated them last and with what for how long.
    3) some of these management types do very well on thier own, when you merge all 3 in 1 "side by side" place you create and "environment" that really does not occur naturally.
    4) who is "checking, brood breaking, treating, etc. does the watcher/tester have the same level of skills in each management type.
    5) who is "funding" the study, looks to me so far, not funded by a small cell foundation manufacturer, follow the money.
    6) the 3 styles, who are the 3 people and how many hives have each "managed" are they equal in talent and experience?

    I find the excersize interesting but I would rather see 30 10 hive blocks in their own environment, managed by the same person who have been manageing for the last 5 years. that would have the hive where is was and the keeper still in place... And we all know keeping is local. so for example If i did the test I would get 100 treated hives from Florida and bring them to Michigan State University Apairy, and test them against the "local" stock, gee who would win?? Or I could take 100 hives from Michigan to Florida to test there, so where the hives come from we know matters.

    Sorry to be a Skeptic, but the hives selected , previous health and management style, and the 300 hive Apairy , and the managers, have lots of interaction that will not make it to the test results data. IMO and from what I have read,, at 50 hives you start to need to look at carrying capacity of the Apairy. Are we feeding, is there a dearth? A dearth may result in robbing which may impact what bugs flow to which hives. I am all for collecting data, But here by the size and place of the Apairy, what hives made it into the Apairy, and Who cracks the lid and when, IMO you are "creating" data.
    Again most folks manage an Apairy all the same, so is this a valid mix of methods, will all methods when Jamed together with other methods still maintain the same results.
    GG

    If the test is repeated in 3 or 4 different states would the results be the same?
    IMO this test is "these hive we selected, managed in the manner we chose, in the same Apairy, produced the following results" so if you were to have an Apairy very near there and do the same thing you to could have the same results.
    GG

  4. #523
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,243

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Goose View Post

    Sorry to be a Skeptic,
    I suggest you read the protocol and first year report, rather than just shotgunning objections.
    For instance:
    1) Apiaries were in two states and many locations, 2) hives were among 27 participating beekeepers.

    The result is consistent will all other controlled studies. TF beekeeping results in horrendous losses.

    Some of the TF preachers have morphed the track record of these losses into a "benefit" believing they are "culling the herd".
    Honeybee genetics does not support that formulation, however.

  5. #524
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern Lower Michigan, USA
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by JWChesnut View Post
    I suggest you read the protocol and first year report, rather than just shotgunning objections.
    For instance:
    1) Apiaries were in two states and many locations, 2) hives were among 27 participating beekeepers.

    The result is consistent will all other controlled studies. TF beekeeping results in horrendous losses.

    Some of the TF preachers have morphed the track record of these losses into a "benefit" believing they are "culling the herd".
    Honeybee genetics does not support that formulation, however.
    JW
    Ok read the study, so then they are not "side by side" some are in a different states, really that is considered Equal. Duck cloth vrs winter cover, is that the same?

    So any 1 or 2 year study should show the bees getting the dope will live longer than the dope free. I am not really surprised, Are you? Now do this for 10 years re make the numbers from the survivors and see what shakes out in year 5 or 7 or 10. In countries where they did not treat, the Mite are almost not a problem any longer. I still do not see the big reveal here. Thanks for the remind to read before you post. Sorry will do better in the future.
    I still submit if your bees need the dope they always will, "looking for a way out of that is not a bad idea" What about in 7 years the mites will be immune to the Amitraz maybe, the dopers seem to swerve from that fact as well. Short enough test to prevent the Immune response of the Mite. Again, not sure for me this is "News" Run the test for 20 years, My Bet is the dopers have to switch to a New Drug or loose. Again, I had a fair amount of training in Statistics, tell me what you want to hear I and I can make a test to prove it. Short 2 or 3 year "trial" keeps the mite immunity to the drug out of the picture and the bees genetics catching up. Pick any drug you want research the time to be Immune for the mites cut the test down to be done before that an Bam you have a winner. Make the test 20 -50 years and I am sure the mites would be immune and Bam it "fails" Sit in a pond and count the ducks flying in, your being there Affects the count, in time no duck will fly there. So are they flaming the tools between hive visits, the "looking" can spread the EFB, on tools. So no measurement occurs in a vacuum.
    I personally am glad there are 2 or 3 sides to this debate, I wish there were 5, the more options the better. The more folks trying the more likely we stumble on a break thru.
    I trust no test to be flawless, period. not even my own. It is all data, some created , some Skewed , but it is unlikely any measurement can be done in A Vacuum. I also see the Word "Package" I bet 1/2 the folks on this forum do not use packages, and can tell you why they are inconsistent to say the best of them. If you put packages on 4.9 comb then really, that is valid. Every Small Cell person I have talked to regress in stages, first regress, second etc. If they put SC packages on the SC them maybe that works but is that Side By Side then.... Again the starting point matters.
    Fun to think about, Have a great Day JW
    GG

  6. #525
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,856

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Duck cloth vrs winter cover, is that the same?
    No, but as I under stand it the winter covers had plastics aka "chemicals" in it, so natural cotton duck was used.
    The one "rule" breaker they did was plastic small cell foundation as they could not find small cell wax foundation, then then covered the foundtion with chemical free wax from Dee Lusby.(They were so anti plastic for this group they cut the foundation out of plastic frames and refit it in wood ones) It was felt by the TF focus group that as the hives were being tested for honey production that going foundationless would have a negative impact and won't not be a "fair" test. Robin's earlier controlled trails had showed foundation being drawn significantly faster.

  7. #526
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,243

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Goose View Post
    JW
    Ok read the study, so then they are not "side by side" some are in a different states, really that is considered Equal. Duck cloth vrs winter cover, is that the same?
    COMB Project, September 2018 - Lopez-Uribe Lab.jpg

    Please. Each apiary had sets of 12 hives, sets of 4 each in each of the 3 treatments. Please don't confound your ignorance in your rush to slag on science.

    All colonies were requeened with queens raised from the same graft mother in mid-August. The original packages were historic small cell for "small cell foundation/ no treatment" and the packages for the conventional and IPM bees were from a conventional source.


    Cite: https://lopezuribelab.com/2018/09/11...eptember-2018/
    Last edited by JWChesnut; 08-26-2019 at 02:04 PM.

  8. #527
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    10,038

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Coincidentally, i watched a very interesting 1 hour TV doco on cults last night.

    One of the main interviewees was a highly intelligent woman who had been a member of the cult for just over 10 years, then had left it 6 months ago. She was now amazed at herself, looking from the outside, at how bizzare it all seemed now, and how she had actually been drawn into the ever deeper levels of it.

    A psychologist said that once a person is drawn into a belief system and it becomes ingrained, once they are confronted with reality that contradicts the belief system, it forces them to make a choice. The psychologist said that more than half of people will withdraw deeper into the belief system, because it is an easier choice.
    "Every viewpoint, is a view from a point." - Solomon Parker

  9. #528
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    2,897

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldtimer View Post
    .......The psychologist said that more than half of people will withdraw deeper into the belief system, because it is an easier choice.
    Which works in any application - a generic idea.
    I may have read a recent article, linked to that exact video.

    In all, a single SC parameter here substituted as if a complete TF-system is ....eh, a scam?
    Cult?
    Can we move away from the foundation customized for the AHB-specific usage already?
    I personally would not dwell on SC any longer.
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  10. #529
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    10,038

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    A slight aside but in case anyone is wondering, the cult featured on the program was Nxivm, started out as a plausable sounding self improvement thing where you paid big bucks to attend seminars, then gradually became more bizzare.
    "Every viewpoint, is a view from a point." - Solomon Parker

  11. #530
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,856

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    In all, a single SC parameter here substituted as if a complete TF-system is ....eh, a scam?
    no, a trial...but sure call it a TF system if you like but rember the discalimer "Please note that these systems should not be considered best management practices. Instead, they are common management practices among beekeepers ranging from hobbyists to commercial practices"

    But it sure wasn't all the boogy men some talk about.... it wasn't "contaminated wax from treatments" killing the hives, it wasn't large cells killing the hives and it wasn't treatments killing the good microbes and then killing the hives
    Admittedly I would have loved to have seen a 4th group of chemical free on standard foundation... but that study has been done......over and over and over and over!

    Berry, J. A., Owens, W. B., & Delaplane, K. S. (2010). Small-cell comb foundation does not impede Varroa mite population growth in honey bee colonies *. Apidologie, 41(1), 40–44.

    Coffey, M. F., Breen, J., Brown, M. J. F., & McMullan, J. B. (2010). Brood-cell size has no influence on the population dynamics of Varroa destructor mites in the native western honey bee , Apis mellifera mellifera *. Apidologie, 41(5), 522–530.

    Ellis, A. M., Hayes, G. W., & Ellis, J. D. (2009). The efficacy of small cell foundation as a varroa mite (Varroa destructor) control. Experimental and Applied Acarology, (47), 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-008-9221-3
    .

    Martin, S. J., & Kryger, P. (2002). Reproduction of Varroa destructor in South African honey bees : does cell space influence Varroa male survivorship ? Apidologie, 33, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1051/apido

    McMullan, J. B., & Brown, M. J. F. (2006). The influence of small-cell brood combs on the morphometry of honeybees ( Apis mellifera )*. Apidologie, 37, 665–672.

    Medina, L. M., & Martin, S. J. (1999). A comparative study of Varroa jacobsoni reproduction in worker cells of honey bees ( Apis mellifera ) in England and Africanized bees in Yucatan , Mexico, (September 1994), 659–667.

    Seeley, T., Griffin, S., Seeley, T., & Griffin, S. (2011). Small-cell comb does not control Varroa mites in colonies of honeybees of European origin Small-cell comb does not control V arroa mites in colonies of honeybees of European origin. Apidologie, (42), 526–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-011-0054-4

    Taylor, M. A., Goodwin, R. M., McBrydie, H. M., & Cox, H. M. (2008). The effect of honey bee worker brood cell size on Varroa destructor infestation and reproduction. Journal of Apicultural Research.

    the small cell "debate" reminds me of all the OA in a fogger talk....(yes both sides can get sucked in to cult like thinking, FGMO still haunts us) but the long an short is IF it was so simple as going with SC foundation it would be main stream and every one would be using it

  12. #531
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    2,897

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    ........ IF it was so simple as going with SC foundation it would be main stream and every one would be using it
    Agreed.

    SC is THE fix - wrong.
    SC is NOT the fix - wrong too.
    SC is really only partially relevant IF AT ALL relevant; a tangent (among many other tangents).

    Naturally LC Bashkortostan bees probably just as resistant by now to the mites.... (Added: still alive and well without much management - 50 years later after the mites flooded the area; ......what? ...how is that possible?..).
    OK, where is the research on that?
    Don't these researchers read BS?

    Naturally LC to MC Far Eastern Russians...
    Now what is wrong with them NOT fitting the SC teachings?
    Don't these researchers read BS?

    Starting anew from literally observing and documenting how the feral bees actually work in natural setting (in many alternative environments - in parallel) is probably a good start.
    For one, if someone went to the FP and SP homes, tracked down several feral trees down there, and documented them for several years - that would be a good start.
    Don't these researchers read BS?
    Last edited by GregV; 08-26-2019 at 03:32 PM.
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  13. #532
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern Lower Michigan, USA
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by JWChesnut View Post
    COMB Project, September 2018 - Lopez-Uribe Lab.jpg

    Please. Each apiary had sets of 12 hives, sets of 4 each in each of the 3 treatments. Please don't confound your ignorance in your rush to slag on science.

    All colonies were requeened with queens raised from the same graft mother in mid-August. The original packages were historic small cell for "small cell foundation/ no treatment" and the packages for the conventional and IPM bees were from a conventional source.


    Cite: https://lopezuribelab.com/2018/09/11...eptember-2018/
    Hey JW, I guess the facts are the facts, I would not stoop to calling someone Ignorant due to them not cow towing to your belief system.

    So here is another detail "All colonies were requeened with queens raised from the same graft mother in mid-August."

    So where is a SC TF apairy that has "ALL" F1 daughters of any queen. Hmmm there is none, TF and Small Cell in general use several lines.

    So from all the data the study had and you have kindly provided. Here is the "thesis they proved......
    F1 daughters (288) of Said Queen XYZ, when placed into hive from packages show 62 -65 % 1st winter survival WHEn the package was drizzeled with OA, VRS 31% survival for the Queen F1s of Mother XYZ placed into packages Not drizzled with OA at the package point. As the time length and Genetics we kept constant one Vairiable really changed was if the package was drizzeled/treated or not. Another way of stating the same Thesis 65% of Packages not drizzeled with OA did not make the first winter with Genitics held constant VRS 35% of packages that had OA Drizzel aapplied. So what we see is 60 some percent of packages left untreated contain enough Mites to fail surviving the first winter. Says a lot to me about packages, not so much about SC. Was the Mother of all Queens from A VRS line or grooming line? If not expecting her daughters to "be" resistant is not science it is reality.
    Again Interesting experiment. I believe there is learning from it, whole sale proof , not so much. IMO your moniker for "science" is a little more liberal than mine. Did not we do Science and say coffee is good for you, no its bad for you, no its good for you. I recall the Butter -Margarine thing went similar. And some of us "could" weigh in on Man Made Global Warming, I think for commercial keeping you typically treat to stay profitable/predictable. For some folks not treating is the only option for them. I am glad we still have the freedom to choose, the camp I am in today may not suite me in the future. hence my interest in everyones camp. O BTW I do not think any of them are Ignorant either.
    GG
    properly done Science can show almost what you wish it to.

  14. #533
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    2,897

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Goose View Post
    ..... Did not we do Science and say coffee is good for you, no its bad for you, no its good for you. I recall the Butter -Margarine thing went similar.......
    Eggs are bad for you.
    Eggs are actually terrible for you.
    Eggs may not be bad for you.
    Eggs are good for you...
    What is in the news today?

    PS: my folks never knew of the egg problem or cholesterol problem;
    lard and eggs were our staple and no one ever cared

    no one in the village had weight problem or heart problem or diabetes problem - because no corporation was invested into any of that - so to flood the news with anti-egg/anti-cholesterol propaganda;
    there were no sugar vs. fat wars to fight, since it ALL was government monopoly - maybe a good thing;

    folks did have alcoholism problem, however;
    alcohol was government monopoly - maybe a bad thing.
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  15. #534
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Algoma District Northern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,745

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    "properly done Science can show almost what you wish it to."

    That would be my description of a process that definitely was not "scientific"!

    It is all to easy to find studies that masquerade as scientific and hold them up to suggest that "scientific" process is not reliable. Plenty of examples where this becomes the persons identity.

    One of the long dead Greek philosophers said something to the effect of, "We argue, not that I may triumph over you, or you over me, but that by discussion we may arrive at a more perfect truth"
    Last edited by crofter; 08-26-2019 at 03:43 PM.
    Frank

  16. #535
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Boaz, KY, USA
    Posts
    1,163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crofter View Post
    One of the long dead Greek philosophers said something to the effect of, "We argue, not that I may triumph over you, or you over me, but that by discussion we may arrive at a more perfect truth"
    Well said (or quoted), Frank.

  17. #536
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern Lower Michigan, USA
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by crofter View Post
    "properly done Science can show almost what you wish it to."

    That would be my description of a process that definitely was not "scientific"!

    It is all to easy to find studies that masquerade as scientific and hold them up to suggest that "scientific" process is not reliable. Plenty of examples where this becomes the persons identity.

    One of the long dead Greek philosophers said something to the effect of, "We argue, not that I may triumph over you, or you over me, but that by discussion we may arrive at a more perfect truth"
    I agree Crofter. We all here IMO want to get at the "best truth" It seems "Science" today, Is used to bam folks over the head to make them form up in a certain way. Pure Science is getting rare today, the "funding" of the study often needs to happen so the Scientist can get paid or get the needed stuff for the study. When needing funding comes into the fray there are the needs of the funding arm, so we often, have studies trying to prove or dispel things to offer benefit to one group or another. The classic example for today is Man Made Global warming. Many on both sides, each lobbing for their power or freedom. Toss on top of that the polling, and make news, and it become a blur to make sense of. Classic poll issue for the times is "every poll had Hillary winning the 2016 race" So unfortunately my starting stance is if you hear it on TV is is likely "make news", if a study is done, Show me who funded it and the Assumptions and variables. I like pure science, just hard to find much of it any more.
    GG

  18. #537
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Algoma District Northern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,745

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    I agree with the BS meter in regard to television. We threw out the television set about 25 years ago. Much of the content is professionally "spun". Full of emotional grabs and a whole list of tactics tuned to peoples conditioned responses.

    It is up to the individual to apply critical thinking. Much of the cultural innuendo we have been exposed to deliberately conditions us to believe the incredible. That is not science!

    Science is alive and well; one has to be critical, but to automatically slag everything that has any appearance of science, exposes us to the foibles of folklore and wishful thinking.

    Critical thinking takes too much energy for many folks and those with agendas take advantage of their mental laziness and gullibility!

    Caveate emptor
    Frank

  19. #538
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,856

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    COMB presentation at Apimondia
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW3-xL7ZG_Y

  20. #539
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    53,768

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    It's basically impossible to please everyone and it's basically impossible to make everything equal. The conventional and organic groups got the benefit of bees that were selected by using no treatments. That's a nice head start.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 42y 40h 39yTF

  21. #540
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Sisters, Oregon
    Posts
    88

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    I’m a pragmatist. This is not an us versus them thing. Will genetics hold the key? Yes. Would I rather have bees resistant to varroa? Of course. The answer for me at this juncture is a blend of prevention and genetics followed by a course of escalating alternatives. I don’t need or care about a honey crop. Keeping small colonies would actually be a preference. I’m also in a ideal place to allow some swarming because I’m at the edge of a forest.

    Do I treat? Yes. If I need to. I don’t like colonies dying when I can do something about it.

    Ian Steggler A Canadian Beekeepers Blog is having to take immediate action in one of his out yards that is within 2 miles of other yards. He is washing 5% as opposed to less than 1% in his interior yards. He can’t wait for his normal OAV in mid-October. So he is dropping Amitraz strips on those outer yards now. I’m sure he’d rather not. But to protect these colonies he is responding in a way that is proportionate to the threat.

Page 27 of 29 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 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
  •