New and unknowledgeable

[Erichalfbee]

Yes, I understand the attachment/feeding habits. But it doesn't answer the question of whether mites are loosened by temporary anaesthesia to a greater or lesser extent than, e.g. the physical effects of sugar rolling.

I was wondering if anyone has any experience of having tried the different techniques and how they compared?

Yes I know but the link was for Philip who I addressed the reply to. I thought he might be interested.

 

[beeno]

I think many people would have similar luck to you if they would only try going treatment free.

Well, I met two beekeepers at Thornes that could not get their colonies through winter and they turned out to be treatment free. A lot of beeks around here though.

 

[fiat500bee]

[QUOTE="pargyle, post: 731521, member: 9418"
This forum is a very forgiving place if you treat it well and most people are very accepting of different ideas and philosophies ... don't paint yourself into a corner ... there are those that do and there's little way out.

Everyone is nice now on the forum ask Dani
[/QUOTE]

I'm not nice.

 

[North End Bees]

Yes I know but the link was for Philip who I addressed the reply to. I thought he might be interested.

Sorry, my misunderstanding

 

[beeno]

I'm assuming the anaesthetic effect of CO2 weakens this grip?

I'm interested from the practical point of view too!

Perhaps the Co2 only removes the phoretic mites (the ones on the move) and not the ones feeding.

 

[pargyle]

[QUOTE="pargyle, post: 731521, member: 9418"
This forum is a very forgiving place if you treat it well and most people are very accepting of different ideas and philosophies ... don't paint yourself into a corner ... there are those that do and there's little way out.

Everyone is nice now on the forum ask Dani
[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure that I suggested anything different ? You can be nice and still be unforgiving of those who continue to persist when they are patently flying in the face of reason ... you should know that.

 

[pargyle]

Yes I know but the link was for Philip who I addressed the reply to. I thought he might be interested.

Yes ... it's an interesting article ...

I found this on the Vita Europe site, I knew I'd read something somewhere:

" Attached to flying bees: Varroa mites attach themselves to the abdomen or thorax of adult bees. Spines on their legs also entwine with hairs on the body surface of the bee. Varroa mites can achieve wide geographic distribution by securing themselves underneath or between the sclerites of the bee and being carried in flight. "

So ... the nasty little critters have some strength of attachment .. if they can stick on a flying bee they are pretty tenuous .. if as the original question asks ... that CO2 anaethesia does not always succeed in dislodging the mites then it stands to reason that they have a physical attachment to their host. I know from personal experience that icing sugar used in a sugar roll dislodges them - it does not always kill the mites it just dislodges them, successfully. If it works - don't fix it !

 

[Gilberdyke John]

[QUOTE="pargyle, post: 731521, member: 9418"
This forum is a very forgiving place if you treat it well and most people are very accepting of different ideas and philosophies ... don't paint yourself into a corner ... there are those that do and there's little way out.

Everyone is nice now on the forum ask Dani
[/QUOTE]

Any truth in the rumour Dani has blond hair, walks through flame, conquers castles and keeps dragons?

 

[Erichalfbee]

Everyone is nice now on the forum ask Dani

Any truth in the rumour Dani has blond hair, walks through flame, conquers castles and keeps dragons?

[/QUOTE
Yes. All that and more.

 

[beeno]

Everyone is nice now on the forum ask Dani

I'm not sure that I suggested anything different ? You can be nice and still be unforgiving of those who continue to persist when they are patently flying in the face of reason ... you should know that.
[/QUOTE]
Sounded a very ominous statement to me and the explanation not a very christian attitude if you don't mind me saying so. You were banned and obviously totally forgiven. Can't say I followed that cat fight. Is that a little insult at the end then? Don't bother because I am not bothered. Let's just say we all agree to disagree sometimes and that is not a big deal and cut out the insults that go with it.

 

[pargyle]

I'm not sure that I suggested anything different ? You can be nice and still be unforgiving of those who continue to persist when they are patently flying in the face of reason ... you should know that.

Sounded a very ominous statement to me and the explanation not a very christian attitude if you don't mind me saying so. You were banned and obviously totally forgiven. Can't say I followed that cat fight. Is that a little insult at the end then? Don't bother because I am not bothered. Let's just say we all agree to disagree sometimes and that is not a big deal and cut out the insults that go with it.
[/QUOTE]
My goodness ... my ban was a long time ago and was the result of some fairly intense provocation ... I'm sure you will remember, as well, the moderation regime at that time tended not to look too closely at cause .. I could not excuse my behaviour at the time but I wasn't banned for being rude ... or insulting ... unlike the other protagonist ... I was banned for not giving up (and I was let out of jail early ! )

I think you took my statement totally out of context and read a meaning into it that was not there. Read the rest of the post again ...

No insults intended .. merely pointing out that you have been long enough on here to see it happen - if I'm going to insult someone there won't be any ambiguity !

 

[pargyle]

Perhaps the Co2 only removes the phoretic mites (the ones on the move) and not the ones feeding.

In that case it's a waste of time and money ... how are you supposed to get an accurate count if only half the mites fall off ... assume that your count needs to be doubled ? At least with a sugar roll you get a full count and there's no 'adjustment' of the figure required.

Also - I thought the term phoretic meant parasites that were attached ... I can't see why, if they are feeding, it requires a different terminology ... they are still attached to the bees and therefore are phoretic ? I can't find phoreattic in the dictionary but perhaps you could suggest it to the OED as an addition to describe feeding phoretic mites ?

" Phoresis or phoresy is a non-permanent, commensalistic interaction in which one organism (a phoront or phoretic) attaches itself to another (the host) solely for the purpose of travel. ... Plants with seeds that disperse by attaching themselves to animals are also considered to be phoretic. "

 

[Erichalfbee]

In that case it's a waste of time and money ... how are you supposed to get an accurate count if only half the mites fall off ... assume that your count needs to be doubled ? At least with a sugar roll you get a full count and there's no 'adjustment' of the figure required.

Also - I thought the term phoretic meant parasites that were attached ... I can't see why, if they are feeding, it requires a different terminology ... they are still attached to the bees and therefore are phoretic ? I can't find phoreattic in the dictionary but perhaps you could suggest it to the OED as an addition to describe feeding phoretic mites ?

" Phoresis or phoresy is a non-permanent, commensalistic interaction in which one organism (a phoront or phoretic) attaches itself to another (the host) solely for the purpose of travel. ... Plants with seeds that disperse by attaching themselves to animals are also considered to be phoretic. "

Yes varroa no longer considered to be phoretic ever. It will take time for it all to filter through and be described as such though there is no excuse for newer publications to use it. They are parasitic all the time. If you see them loose on a bees thorax they are very momentarily in transit

 

[pargyle]

Yes varroa no longer considered to be phoretic ever. It will take time for it all to filter through and be described as such though there is no excuse for newer publications to use it. They are parasitic all the time. If you see them loose on a bees thorax they are very momentarily in transit

Ahh ... must try and keep up ... not that the mites are going to worry what they are called ... I've got a few things I'd call them !

 

[North End Bees]

Yes varroa no longer considered to be phoretic ever. It will take time for it all to filter through and be described as such though there is no excuse for newer publications to use it.

Unfortunately the term 'phoretic' seems to be stuck about as firmly as the theory of mites feeding on haemolymph.

And that idea's not going away anytime soon (along with a lot of other theories in beekeeping!)

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

My goodness ... my ban was a long time ago and was the result of some fairly intense provocation ... I'm sure you will remember, as well, the moderation regime at that time tended not to look too closely at cause .. I could not excuse my behaviour at the time but I wasn't banned for being rude ... or insulting ... unlike the other protagonist ... I was banned for not giving up (and I was let out of jail early ! )

I think you took my statement totally out of context and read a meaning into it that was not there. Read the rest of the post again ...

pretty unchristian and rather insulting really (IMHO )

 

[BeeGiner]

I just checked my inspection board and apart from the varoa expected from my OA treatment found four bee heads and multiple bee legs. It’s only 24 hours since I last looked at the board. What’s the likely reason for this and should I be worried?

 

[AubMar]

I checked some varroa from the bottom board from two nucs and found half have legs amputated courtesy of mite resistant bees.
Some images of good ones and modified ones! I think the resistant bees are evolving - These are Amm and almost black

 

[North End Bees]

I just checked my inspection board and apart from the varoa expected from my OA treatment found four bee heads and multiple bee legs. It’s only 24 hours since I last looked at the board. What’s the likely reason for this and should I be worried?

There are always bits of bee under the hive, they're just more noticeable with the inspection tray in!

The heads may be what wasps have left. Other scavenger insects also clear up the 'meaty' bits of dead bees.

Here's an interesting (but anecdotal) article on the HoneyBeeSuite site.

 

[user 819]

Legs form dead bees killed by wasps within the hive can and will appear on inserts but larger parts like the head abdomen are too large to fall through varroa mesh floors, the likely hood is that some bees access the insert and this is where the body parts come from either from being killed or naturally dying and then dismembered.