REDWOOD
Queen Bee
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 8,381
- Reaction score
- 93
- Location
- swansea south wales
- Hive Type
- 14x12
- Number of Hives
- 10
I chemically treat my hives, but have long given up chemically treating my body 
Chemically treated hive going natural
- Thread starter Saskclaud
- Start date
Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:
midnight sun
Field Bee
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 983
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- preston
- Hive Type
- National
- Number of Hives
- 6
I chemically treat my hives, but have long given up chemically treating my body
Nice one!
midnight sun
Field Bee
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 983
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- preston
- Hive Type
- National
- Number of Hives
- 6
In my opinion Beekeepers should make efforts to learn the facts and then make an informed decision rather than bow to group pressure of "to be a responsible beekeeper treat."[/QUOTE]
I am not sure I follow your 'jist'.
I have read some of your posts with interest and you seem to suggest different approaches to beekeeping via your 'research'. Then if these are applied by you (or anyone else) you would be 'treating' and it is something that you 'press' home.
Do we not all 'treat' by some method or regime? I am of the opinion that if there is malady and I can assist the bees, then I will treat by the best method I know to date.
I hope that these discussions can expand our knowledge of the facts and so improve our methods accordingly.
Perhaps I have not followed your train of thought Derekm and this is what I can't follow.
Regards
I am not sure I follow your 'jist'.
I have read some of your posts with interest and you seem to suggest different approaches to beekeeping via your 'research'. Then if these are applied by you (or anyone else) you would be 'treating' and it is something that you 'press' home.
Do we not all 'treat' by some method or regime? I am of the opinion that if there is malady and I can assist the bees, then I will treat by the best method I know to date.
I hope that these discussions can expand our knowledge of the facts and so improve our methods accordingly.
Perhaps I have not followed your train of thought Derekm and this is what I can't follow.
Regards
Explain these
'treat' in this context is prophylatic application of chemical accarides specifically organic acids and essential oils. We dont use any of those methods
You put the term research in quotes why? Often that is used as tactic to cast doubt on veracity. If you would like to personally observe a repetition of the experiments I have conducted i would be happy to oblige. If you have a doubt about anything I say about another parties research I am happy to provide references to their research.
Last edited:
midnight sun
Field Bee
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 983
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- preston
- Hive Type
- National
- Number of Hives
- 6
Explain these
'treat' in this context is prophylatic application of chemical accarides specifically organic acids and essential oils. We dont use any of those methods
You put the term research in quotes why? Often that is used as tactic to cast doubt on veracity. If you would like to personally observe a repetition of the experiments I have conducted i would be happy to oblige. If you have a doubt about anything I say about another parties research I am happy to provide references to their research.[/QUOTE]
'These' as a general term to refer to your methods or approaches to your beekeeping practices derived from your research.
'treat', you use your definition, I just used mine.
The quotes as you put it, were my way of separating out the word I was referring to as a general topic or area but nothing specific. You interpret my use which may not be good sentence structure, incorrectly . Where have I cast doubt on your research. I think you are being a little over sensitive.
As I said 'perhaps I have not followed your train of thought'. I still don't,
but I'm happy to leave it that way.Regards
derekm said:
'These' as a general term to refer to your methods or approaches to your beekeeping practices derived from your research.
'treat', you use your definition, I just used mine.
The quotes as you put it, were my way of separating out the word I was referring to as a general topic or area but nothing specific. You interpret my use which may not be good sentence structure, incorrectly . Where have I cast doubt on your research. I think you are being a little over sensitive.
As I said 'perhaps I have not followed your train of thought'. I still don't,
Regards
It is rather stretch to call keeping bees in the higher humidity, very high insulation environment that they would get in tree nest, a "treatment".
Our cessation of "treatment" is because although the manufacturers say their product is affected by temperature, they provide no guidance for even polystyrene hives. Subsequently we found out that it may not be as necessary, if you maintain high humidity levels, which it self requires high levels of insulation.
Some of the academic research i referred to:
this uses AFB as an example of the interaction of beeking practices and bee epidemiology.
http://www.apimondia.com/symposia/2... AND BEEKEEPING PRACTICES - Ingemar Fries.pdf.
Bees and Varoa without treatment
http://www.apimondia.com/congresses... TOLERANCE ON ISLANDS - Tjeerd Blacquiere.pdf
http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/abs/2007/01/m6063/m6063.html
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2012
- Messages
- 17,548
- Reaction score
- 8,747
- Location
- Fareham, Hampshire UK
- Hive Type
- 14x12
- Number of Hives
- 6
Sorry Pargyle, had to dash earlier as I explained I had an appointment and was running late.
To continue where I left off. You say that you use IPM (as hopefully we all do as a matter of course). Would you not consider that IPM, IS, actually a form of treatment. I do not know your regime and would not question your methods if it works for you, but if you are drone culling for instance then you are interfering with what is occurring and therefore it is a form of treatment (in my opinion at least).
Yes ... I consider that what I do is a form of IPM ... I don't cull drones systematically - what I do is monitor religiously and this includes uncapping drone cells at each inspection (not all of them just enough to see what the state of mites is within the cells) and if there are more than I would like to see then I will sacrifice some drone brood - it gets rapidly replaced I find. However, having monitored mite drop on an (almost) daily basis for well over a year now, having done alcohol washes and sugar rolls to count mites I have not found excessively high levels of mites.
To say, as some do, that their bees are 'varroa resistant' is quite a claim. Ceranae bred or cross bred bees may have a naturally occurring resistance or tolerance to varroa, (by forming an 'equilibrium'), as it is claimed ,that is where varroa came from. But if you were say drone culling very regularly then you would actually be reducing the level of varroa down to a level that the bees could just more readily tolerate, wouldn't you agree.
I don't claim that my bees are any more tolerant of varroa - although I do see live varroa regularly on the inspection floor so they may be grooming but perhaps all bees groom and I just see more of it because of the way I monitor. My inspection boards are about 75mm below the mesh floor so it is harder for live mites to return to the hive. It is likely (as I've said elsewhere) that heavily insulated hives create the warmer, more humid conditions that varroa apparently find less conducive to their reproduction. Obviously, when I do cull drone brood it will knock back the mites but I don't remove all the drone brood and there are always plenty of drones in the hive. I am foundationless and whilst I have not measured cell size the bees do build the cells they want and it may be that they are regressing to a smaller cell size- there is evidence that varroa are attracted to larger cells in worker brood as well as the larger cells occupied by drones.
This would not be varroa resistant or tolerant and (in the way that 'natural beekeeping comes across from it's advocates sometimes) in that instance would then be a false claim of 'tolerant or resistant' bees.
I agree with you, that a beekeeper should not close their mind off to new or different methods of caring for our bees, but tried and tested methods that have proved successful and not detrimental or cruel to our bees should not be classed as 'dyed in the wool' in the way you imply.
I don't class the conventional methods as 'dyed in the wool' - they work - and I have a belief that there is a place for them ... the issue I have is the 'dyed in the wool' BEEKEEPERS who close their minds to anything that does not conform to what they have been doing since Brother Adam was a lad and preach their brand of beekeeping as the ONLY method.
If you reread my original reply, although it was a little brusk, I hoped it would wake the OP up to the fact that it would be better to do something rather than nothing and even to use conventional 'treatments' rather than to wait until they have picked up enough knowledge to add more IPM based techniques as tool to the wellbeing of their charge. I hope you will agree that IPM techniques vary and are numerous and therefore will take time to learn. Therefore (in my opinion) I would consider the soft chemical methods advisable at the beginning to at least protect the bees till more experience is gained. Many beginners courses teach the 'chemical' treatments as they are something the students can take in at the beginning, as I'm sure you will remember your early days and how there is a lot to learn in such a short time.
Yes ... and I've made clear that the low interference path is a difficult one to tread and it takes more thought and effort than the more conventional approach.
I THEN go on to say that if you do not treat your bees then they will probably die.
No ...you said they WILL die. "your friend will only have bees for a season (if you are lucky) and then they will be dead." That was the emphatic statement that I took exception to as it is misleading ... perhaps you were in haste and that's just the way it came out.
How many bees were lost to varroa before keepers were alerted to the problem and how many WILD (therefore untreated) colonies do people say still exist?
It's generally accepted that varroa arrived in Devon in 1990 on imported bees but were not discovered until 1992 ~ by which time they were already affecting large numbers of colonies ,indeed it was epidemic levels of DWV that was first noticed and lead to the discovery that varroa had taken a hold - the subsequent panic measures and over treatment with pyrethroids actually, IMO, only made matters worse - but at the time beekeeping was facing a desperate situation.
Nobody knows how many feral colonies are left ... more than many people would imagine I think ... whether the remaining colonies co-exist with varroa, are less affected by them or simply die out nobody really knows as there has only been one study in recent years .. by Catherine Thompson. Her study involved taking samples from 34 feral colonies - the only ones that were accessible, although over 100 colonies were identified. She certainly found that levels of DWV were higher in these feral colonies than in the comparator treated hives and were comparable with untreated managed hives; although it is not clear whether feral colonies have novel mechanisms to resist such high levels of DWV.
Her Paper can be read fully here:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0105164
It's an interesting study but her conclusions lead mainly to the need for further future study ... and there's still no evidence that varroa has lead to the demise of feral colonies in the UK. I suspect the change in farming, loss of orchards and the fact that there are less of the traditional places (roof spaces, barns, rotten trees) where feral bees could live is as much to blame for fewer feral colonies - if that is indeed the case. It may also be that many feral colonies are escapees from managed colonies and could stem from imported stock that cannot easily survive our climate. Who knows ?
I actually say that if you LEAVE those bees to 'go natural' then..........
If you use only IPM, assuming you know the techniques then you are NOT LEAVING them to go natural. Going natural in my view would be leaving them to their own devices which could in a short time put them in the same position as our almost non existent 'wild colonies'. They have died!
I agree .. leave alone beekeeping and 'natural' beekeeping is not what I practice or what I preach .. responsible, low interference beekeeping is a very different proposition. As for extinct feral bee populations - well, the jury is still out on that ...
I admit at the beginning that I am not an experienced keeper (15 months to be precise) but I think you will agree that I make some valid points although I am always willing to listen and learn from experience.
This is a forum for discussion at sometimes it can get heated, but disagreement and even argument, ( won't mention matchsticks.....DOH!)can hopefully push the boundaries to help us develop better beekeeping techniques for the future.
I don't look for arguments and I'm certainly not heading a crusade for leave alone beekeeping - far from it - I merely put forward my experience and what I do as an alternative ... at present it seems to work for me and a growing number of others who follow a similar path. It may not be to everyone's liking but if people wish to follow this route then I would encourage them to follow me and others to the 'dark side' but with the caveat that you have to work at it.
I'm sure we can ALL agree on that principal.
Of course.
I just felt I had to reply to your comments and justify mine, no doubt you would. Hope I was a little clearer.
Yes ... and perhaps I was a little harsh in my initial comments.
Regards
To continue where I left off. You say that you use IPM (as hopefully we all do as a matter of course). Would you not consider that IPM, IS, actually a form of treatment. I do not know your regime and would not question your methods if it works for you, but if you are drone culling for instance then you are interfering with what is occurring and therefore it is a form of treatment (in my opinion at least).
Yes ... I consider that what I do is a form of IPM ... I don't cull drones systematically - what I do is monitor religiously and this includes uncapping drone cells at each inspection (not all of them just enough to see what the state of mites is within the cells) and if there are more than I would like to see then I will sacrifice some drone brood - it gets rapidly replaced I find. However, having monitored mite drop on an (almost) daily basis for well over a year now, having done alcohol washes and sugar rolls to count mites I have not found excessively high levels of mites.
To say, as some do, that their bees are 'varroa resistant' is quite a claim. Ceranae bred or cross bred bees may have a naturally occurring resistance or tolerance to varroa, (by forming an 'equilibrium'), as it is claimed ,that is where varroa came from. But if you were say drone culling very regularly then you would actually be reducing the level of varroa down to a level that the bees could just more readily tolerate, wouldn't you agree.
I don't claim that my bees are any more tolerant of varroa - although I do see live varroa regularly on the inspection floor so they may be grooming but perhaps all bees groom and I just see more of it because of the way I monitor. My inspection boards are about 75mm below the mesh floor so it is harder for live mites to return to the hive. It is likely (as I've said elsewhere) that heavily insulated hives create the warmer, more humid conditions that varroa apparently find less conducive to their reproduction. Obviously, when I do cull drone brood it will knock back the mites but I don't remove all the drone brood and there are always plenty of drones in the hive. I am foundationless and whilst I have not measured cell size the bees do build the cells they want and it may be that they are regressing to a smaller cell size- there is evidence that varroa are attracted to larger cells in worker brood as well as the larger cells occupied by drones.
This would not be varroa resistant or tolerant and (in the way that 'natural beekeeping comes across from it's advocates sometimes) in that instance would then be a false claim of 'tolerant or resistant' bees.
I agree with you, that a beekeeper should not close their mind off to new or different methods of caring for our bees, but tried and tested methods that have proved successful and not detrimental or cruel to our bees should not be classed as 'dyed in the wool' in the way you imply.
I don't class the conventional methods as 'dyed in the wool' - they work - and I have a belief that there is a place for them ... the issue I have is the 'dyed in the wool' BEEKEEPERS who close their minds to anything that does not conform to what they have been doing since Brother Adam was a lad and preach their brand of beekeeping as the ONLY method.
If you reread my original reply, although it was a little brusk, I hoped it would wake the OP up to the fact that it would be better to do something rather than nothing and even to use conventional 'treatments' rather than to wait until they have picked up enough knowledge to add more IPM based techniques as tool to the wellbeing of their charge. I hope you will agree that IPM techniques vary and are numerous and therefore will take time to learn. Therefore (in my opinion) I would consider the soft chemical methods advisable at the beginning to at least protect the bees till more experience is gained. Many beginners courses teach the 'chemical' treatments as they are something the students can take in at the beginning, as I'm sure you will remember your early days and how there is a lot to learn in such a short time.
Yes ... and I've made clear that the low interference path is a difficult one to tread and it takes more thought and effort than the more conventional approach.
I THEN go on to say that if you do not treat your bees then they will probably die.
No ...you said they WILL die. "your friend will only have bees for a season (if you are lucky) and then they will be dead." That was the emphatic statement that I took exception to as it is misleading ... perhaps you were in haste and that's just the way it came out.
How many bees were lost to varroa before keepers were alerted to the problem and how many WILD (therefore untreated) colonies do people say still exist?
It's generally accepted that varroa arrived in Devon in 1990 on imported bees but were not discovered until 1992 ~ by which time they were already affecting large numbers of colonies ,indeed it was epidemic levels of DWV that was first noticed and lead to the discovery that varroa had taken a hold - the subsequent panic measures and over treatment with pyrethroids actually, IMO, only made matters worse - but at the time beekeeping was facing a desperate situation.
Nobody knows how many feral colonies are left ... more than many people would imagine I think ... whether the remaining colonies co-exist with varroa, are less affected by them or simply die out nobody really knows as there has only been one study in recent years .. by Catherine Thompson. Her study involved taking samples from 34 feral colonies - the only ones that were accessible, although over 100 colonies were identified. She certainly found that levels of DWV were higher in these feral colonies than in the comparator treated hives and were comparable with untreated managed hives; although it is not clear whether feral colonies have novel mechanisms to resist such high levels of DWV.
Her Paper can be read fully here:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0105164
It's an interesting study but her conclusions lead mainly to the need for further future study ... and there's still no evidence that varroa has lead to the demise of feral colonies in the UK. I suspect the change in farming, loss of orchards and the fact that there are less of the traditional places (roof spaces, barns, rotten trees) where feral bees could live is as much to blame for fewer feral colonies - if that is indeed the case. It may also be that many feral colonies are escapees from managed colonies and could stem from imported stock that cannot easily survive our climate. Who knows ?
I actually say that if you LEAVE those bees to 'go natural' then..........
If you use only IPM, assuming you know the techniques then you are NOT LEAVING them to go natural. Going natural in my view would be leaving them to their own devices which could in a short time put them in the same position as our almost non existent 'wild colonies'. They have died!
I agree .. leave alone beekeeping and 'natural' beekeeping is not what I practice or what I preach .. responsible, low interference beekeeping is a very different proposition. As for extinct feral bee populations - well, the jury is still out on that ...
I admit at the beginning that I am not an experienced keeper (15 months to be precise) but I think you will agree that I make some valid points although I am always willing to listen and learn from experience.
This is a forum for discussion at sometimes it can get heated, but disagreement and even argument, ( won't mention matchsticks.....DOH!)can hopefully push the boundaries to help us develop better beekeeping techniques for the future.
I don't look for arguments and I'm certainly not heading a crusade for leave alone beekeeping - far from it - I merely put forward my experience and what I do as an alternative ... at present it seems to work for me and a growing number of others who follow a similar path. It may not be to everyone's liking but if people wish to follow this route then I would encourage them to follow me and others to the 'dark side' but with the caveat that you have to work at it.
I'm sure we can ALL agree on that principal.
Of course.
I just felt I had to reply to your comments and justify mine, no doubt you would. Hope I was a little clearer.
Yes ... and perhaps I was a little harsh in my initial comments.
Regards
Last edited:
Did you know that you can just about see Uranus as a small dot with the naked eye.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 11,231
- Reaction score
- 2,882
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
- Hive Type
- Langstroth
- Number of Hives
- 6 to 8 Langstroth jumbos, a few Langstroth and National nucs.
Only with a mirror as I can't bend that far.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 36,063
- Reaction score
- 15,946
- Location
- Glanaman,Carmarthenshire,Wales
- Hive Type
- National
- Number of Hives
- Too many - but not nearly enough
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2012
- Messages
- 17,548
- Reaction score
- 8,747
- Location
- Fareham, Hampshire UK
- Hive Type
- 14x12
- Number of Hives
- 6
Don't change the subject ... just getting going ... this is the warm up thread for the winter ....
Don't change the subject ... just getting going ... this is the warm up thread for the winter ....
Does this Bodes well or is it going to Herschel about?
midnight sun
Field Bee
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 983
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- preston
- Hive Type
- National
- Number of Hives
- 6
QUOTE=Hivemaker.;445853]Did you know that you can just about see Uranus as a small dot with the naked eye.[/QUOTE]
More to Follow I predict!
More to Follow I predict!
midnight sun
Field Bee
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 983
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- preston
- Hive Type
- National
- Number of Hives
- 6
Hello Derickm
I have saved the material from your shortcuts and will read these when I get chance and I will reply at some point. (It depends somewhat on free time as I'm sure you can understand.)
Firstly lets clarify a point. You seemed to take offence at my using single quotes to isolate certain words. When I write I use this as a quick method to group several possibilities under one common one. (Not saying it's good English by any means) For example: 'research' would cover :- research, theory, ponderings, investigation, enquiries, etc. etc. or anything in that 'ball park'. It's a loose term method I use. If I mean research, I will use the word without quotes therefore being specific.
As I believe I answered your questions (which could have been asked in a more courteous way) then perhaps you would return the favour.
You claim that, "You put the term research in quotes why? Often that is used as tactic to cast doubt on veracity." Can you show me where I have done this regarding any of your research, or tried to discredit you in any way? I feel that not only did you over react to my comment but you then assumed it's meaning. I have to say that as you seem to portray yourself as a man of science, I find it odd, that you would assume or presume anything. Assumptions are not facts and therefore is it not poor science?
I thought this forum was for discussion and questions. I'm sure you wouldn't want to feel that you should be exempt? That would be again a bit unscientific.
You just come across a bit over defensive. It's a forum.
To move on though, I can see the problem over the words "treat" or "treatment". I felt that any form of intervention with a system, which could result in a change in it's status, could be considered a treatment in the broadest sense of the word. From what you say about you creating an artificial environment that mimics the "tree nest" to create a high humidity, then I would say ,yes, that is a form of treating the varroa. You may disagree, so I suggest we agree to disagree as further discussion will go nowhere.
However I look forward to reading the material you pointed out. Do you not have any papers published by yourself you could share with this forum? They may turn into some fine forum discussions, wouldn't you agree?
Thanks for your time,
Regards
P.S. I've tried to keep the ' ' 's to minimum.
midnight sun
Field Bee
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 983
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- preston
- Hive Type
- National
- Number of Hives
- 6
midnight sun
Field Bee
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 983
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- preston
- Hive Type
- National
- Number of Hives
- 6
Firstly, can I say that while Pargyle and myself were having our discussion, perhaps we should have perhaps advised the OP to find the nearest association, join and hopefully be issued with a mentor to help them. Sorry, about that if your still following, (although I doubt it now!), but if you are, search the web for something in your local area or visit the BBKA to find one. Here is the address.
http://www.------------- swap the dashes for BBKA (don't know why the dashes appeared)
So, thanks for the link Pargyle. It was a fairly easy read for an academic paper, (they usually make me drowsy after short while due to their format).
By the way, I agree that “probably” should have been used, (bit of haste as you pointed out ), but I have actually seen someone get a healthy colony fail in less than a year.(all the gear, no idea, I thinks is the term that I have seen somewhere on this forum) The colony was purchased by a, “look what I've just got in MY garden” type. The shiny hive tool had never been near it. The person thought it was 'natural bee keeping' to truly leave it to it's own devices. This is the example in the back of my mind, in my original reply and it was finished before the end of the year.
It was a difficult bit of research (no quotes, lol) as there were several areas which were difficult to balance across both sides of the argument as they weren't dealing with controllable variables.
I want to make this brief as I don't want to put anyone to sleep and time is short (again!).
One difficulty was proving that the feral colonies were truly feral. Is activity at a site for at least for one year proof of their feral label? Is it definitely the same colony? Who knows? I've heard that it could take up to 3 years to kill a colony via Varroa. (or less)
Anyway it seems there is a possibility that the feral's could be becoming more tolerant to Varroa or more likely some of the diseases they are vectoring and this could be down to them adapting. The question I wondered about was “Are managed bees becoming more tolerant at the same time?” It may be happening anyway (as mine seemed to cope very well with very high count (down to my lack of vigilance) and they are in very good health, of that I'm certain. It may be a natural progression in any case. It may be happening at a slower rate in managed colonies as the loading is less due to keeper intervention (by any method).
I think that there is a fair way to go yet before we know. I would be interested in your thoughts.
Need to go as I believe I have been 'given' 3 papers to read via Derickm. (This may take time!)
http://www.------------- swap the dashes for BBKA (don't know why the dashes appeared)
So, thanks for the link Pargyle. It was a fairly easy read for an academic paper, (they usually make me drowsy after short while due to their format).
By the way, I agree that “probably” should have been used, (bit of haste as you pointed out ), but I have actually seen someone get a healthy colony fail in less than a year.(all the gear, no idea, I thinks is the term that I have seen somewhere on this forum) The colony was purchased by a, “look what I've just got in MY garden” type. The shiny hive tool had never been near it. The person thought it was 'natural bee keeping' to truly leave it to it's own devices. This is the example in the back of my mind, in my original reply and it was finished before the end of the year.
It was a difficult bit of research (no quotes, lol) as there were several areas which were difficult to balance across both sides of the argument as they weren't dealing with controllable variables.
I want to make this brief as I don't want to put anyone to sleep and time is short (again!).
One difficulty was proving that the feral colonies were truly feral. Is activity at a site for at least for one year proof of their feral label? Is it definitely the same colony? Who knows? I've heard that it could take up to 3 years to kill a colony via Varroa. (or less)
Anyway it seems there is a possibility that the feral's could be becoming more tolerant to Varroa or more likely some of the diseases they are vectoring and this could be down to them adapting. The question I wondered about was “Are managed bees becoming more tolerant at the same time?” It may be happening anyway (as mine seemed to cope very well with very high count (down to my lack of vigilance) and they are in very good health, of that I'm certain. It may be a natural progression in any case. It may be happening at a slower rate in managed colonies as the loading is less due to keeper intervention (by any method).
I think that there is a fair way to go yet before we know. I would be interested in your thoughts.
Need to go as I believe I have been 'given' 3 papers to read via Derickm. (This may take time!)
Last edited:
midnight sun
Field Bee
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 983
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- preston
- Hive Type
- National
- Number of Hives
- 6
Read them, some of it basic, but thanks.
You pm'd me saying you were sensitive to "potential challenges of integrity".
I asked you to show me where I had done this. (Gave you two chances).You have failed to do so. Not the first time either, judging by some of the posts I have found, where evidence is requested. You sent this instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
Researched to justify your assumption.
It is common for researchers to pick out evidence, providing it supports their claim and ditch the rest.
Try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark
Supports my use as I stated. (and nothing selective about it)
Your last pm considered conversation over. Best really, as I will waste no more time on you or your 'research'. All further communication will be ignored.
Still, it's been a laugh!
Last edited:
ugcheleuce
Field Bee
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2013
- Messages
- 669
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Apeldoorn, Netherlands
- Hive Type
- National
- Number of Hives
- 7-10
The awful chemical will have had one of two possible effects on every varroa mite that is left in the colony: weakened it, or didn't weaken it. None of the mites that are left in the colony will have been strengthened because of the chemical.
The same can be said of the bees: some of the bees would be weakened, and some would be unaffected. However, all of the bees that are born from eggs that were laid after the treatment had stopped will have suffered no harm due to the chemical. What's more, the chemical (which one??) shouldn't affect any the surviving bees' ability to nurse young bees. So, within three or four weeks you'll have lots of bees again that will have suffered no ill effects due to the chemical.
As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), varroa doesn't grow faster in weak colonies. The mite has a brood cycle that lasts so long that it will double its number in worker cells and triple its number in drone cells, and that ability to breed is not affected by the strength of the colony.
(This applies to summer, of course. What effect the chemical would have on the winter bees depends on what chemical it is and on when the chemical was applied.)
Last edited:
