OA treatment - when?

[Chris Luck]

So, with no personal criticism what so ever, we have a situation where many people are keeping bees in situations where they are not allowed to behave in a natural manner.

Fine if that's what you have to do, but go figure, I'm accused directly and indirectly of bad practise?

Th problem is that, (and I can't be asked to look where now), there are people on this forum that state categorically that bees can't be kept naturally and that colonies will not last three years without treatments - this according to INRA is simply not true, they are showing 15 years for some and still going.

Urine? Minerals?
THE CHOICE OF D R I N K I NG WATER BY THE HONEYBEE.
BY C. G. BUTLER
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/17/3/253.pdf

Chris

 

[RoofTops]

Calm down Chris, I'm not accusing you of bad practice and as for keeping bees in a natural manner - if you can do it without annoying neighbours, which is sounds as if you can, then get on with it. But do the farmers round you not put fences round their fields? Few animals exploited by Man lives an entirely natural life - other than for example wild creatures which are shot. If you want to do it really naturally turf all your bees out when the weather warms up and let them find holes in trees and walls to nest. You can then harvest their honey - assuming you can get at it and the colonies survive.

 

[Chris Luck]

No RoofTops, your not accusing me of bad practise, but others have.

Obviously fencing beasts is sensible where it required, that isn't everywhere as I'm sure you are aware, but that is a digression, we are talking about bees which are in fact simply insects that form colonies.however interesting that may be.

For me it's a matter of principle, (my work is in conservation). I don't use chemical treatments on my land, we use the minimum of artificial chemicals in the home, (really next to nothing), we grow organically and buy organic where possible and I try to treat the bees in my care as naturally and with as little disruption as is possible.

The point is that it is possible to keep bees without treatment. Perhaps the people that have denied this up until now could try to get to grips with that.

Chris

 

[Chris Luck]

Oh, I should have said, this is when some smarty says "I bet you drive a car", there I've saved them the trouble.

Chris

 

[victor meldrew]

I'll bet it's a gas guzzling Chelsea tractor type thingy mi jig ?


John Wilkinson
I live on locusts and wild honey ,HONEST

John Wilkinson

 

[Chris Luck]

What about addressing the INRA survey facts JW? 15 years and going strong - no treatments.

That would be more interesting on a bee forum and well worth serious consideration.

Chris

 

[victor meldrew]

What about addressing the INRA survey facts JW? 15 years and going strong - no treatments.

That would be more interesting on a bee forum and well worth serious consideration.

Chris

Probably so?
John Wilkinson
I am gently pulling your leg ! Honestly

 

[Chris Luck]

Well, that's an improvement....

.....found a bit more now in English.

Our results clearly show that some honey bee colonies can survive without protection from Varroa for longer than 1 or 2 years, as previously reported (Robaux, 1986). The 12 colonies observed in the first group of colonies survived on average at least 9.8 years, and 5 of them survived more than 11 years. During the last nine-year experiment on the second group of colonies, the mortality in the VSB colonies was slightly more but not significantly different from the treated colonies. Annual colony mortality between 5 and 10 percent is considered acceptable by beekeepers in France. We can conclude that the Va r ro a infestation of untreated colonies did not cause more colony loss during that nine-year period compared to colonies treated with Apivar r.
The infestation rate of the VSB colonies, derived from mite fall on the bottom board, was especially low, three times lower, compared to control colonies. This suggests that VSB colonies have developed mechanisms to inhibit the growth of V. destructor populations.
Thus, VSB colonies apparently have attained a host – parasite equilibrium which is not the result of beekeeper selection but due to natural selection.

http://www.prodinra.inra.fr/prodinra/pinra/data/2009/12/PROD20097b481c6_20091209115710014.pdf

Chris

 

[RoofTops]

Chris, if it seems you are getting a bit of stick here it is because this subject has been chewed over many times before and in many cases, one in particular springs to mind, the person advocating this regime was even more strident and dismissive of other views than you appear to be.

It has been done before. Leave colonies alone and after high early losses a few colonies will still be alive at the end. This is not new and is well known.

The issue for most is the problem of the early colony losses. This is not acceptable to most people with a small number of colonies.

There is then the problem of the end result - a colony which appears to have reached some sort of equilibrium with the mites. This may seem ideal but the mite load from what I have heard is likely to be high and the bees are doing not much more than survive.

I think most of us would be delighted to stop using chemicals on our bees. When the solution has been found we will adopt it but the leave alone solution is not the one most of us want. I also have a suspicion those who advocate this system have a different view as to what a healthy colony looks like from the rest of us.

As for colony losses, a bee farmer I met recently with several hundred colonies has winter losses are 3% to 4%. He treats with Apivar. The UK's National Bee Unit has about 150 colonies and I heard a couple of years ago their losses that year were zero. They had also used Apivar. However, I am not advocating Apivar - its is what I would call a "hard" chemical - Amitraz. I use organic acids.

If high losses and regular swarms are acceptable to the beekeeper then let them stop varroa treatment. But their honey crops will be low and their neighbours may not like the swarms setting up home in their houses.

 

[Chris Luck]

You still seem to be missing the point - over the years I haven't lost a hive as a result of varroa.

I have "lost" two colonies where they have swarmed and the colony that remained in the hive had Queen failure, and I have "lost" one where the colony that has swarmed has for some reason lost the Queen.

This is not the same as

"Leave colonies alone and after high early losses a few colonies will still be alive at the end. This is not new and is well known.""

The losses are not occurring in the first place.

There is then the problem of the end result - a colony which appears to have reached some sort of equilibrium with the mites. This may seem ideal but the mite load from what I have heard is likely to be high and the bees are doing not much more than survive.

That if I may say so is waffle. A colony that is strong, healthy and producing excess honey without even being given feed is doing a bit more than "managing to survive" - please!

I also have a suspicion those who advocate this system have a different view as to what a healthy colony looks like from the rest of us.

I hope your not in the police force! You have a suspicion that I don't know what a healthy colony looks like compared to you? Quel arrogance! You just can't help yourself, can you?

If high losses and regular swarms are acceptable to the beekeeper then let them stop varroa treatment. But their honey crops will be low and their neighbours may not like the swarms setting up home in their houses.

This needs breaking down, I've dealt with the high losses, in my case they don't exist, (or in the INRA study where it also clearly states that the feral colonies have returned - another bone of contention on this forum).

Sure, the yield may be lower than in colonies where swarming is prevented and the bees are feed litres of sugar syrup BUT I'm interested in having healthy natural bees and not in maximising my profit. I know it's comparing oranges and apples, but it's the same argument that's used for intensive farming of livestock and IMO it's based on greed.

So, we are left with the fact that your neighbours may not like swarms...

.....have you asked them? A swarm doesn't go very far in the first instance, so even in suburbia it shouldn't be to difficult to canvas the people living nearby and even enlist their help in keeping an eye out.

As naturalist and conservationist I'm quite happy with natural selection and therefore it should also be quite clear that my interest is in strong bee colonies, living in a clean habitat, that have, (or are in the process of), adapting to deal with changes without the use of artificial treatments.

Chris

 

[RoofTops]

Good luck with your beekeeping, you are well named and your avatar fits your personality well. The colony losses I was referring to were not yours but being quick to take offense I can see how you may have read it as such. I was referring to the colony losses reported in the study you quoted.

"...have shown that some honey bee colonies (5 of 150 initial colonies) infested by V. destructor may survive for over 6 years even if mite control is not practiced."

Most beekeepers with 150 colonies would probably not like to see 145 expire in the hope the last 5 will be full of wonder bees.

 

[Chris Luck]

you are well named and your avatar fits your personality well. The colony losses I was referring to were not yours but being quick to take offense I can see how you may have read it as such. I was referring to the colony losses reported in the study you quoted.

Yup, nice and cuddly, that's me...now please read this part...

Compared to treated colonies, there was significantly higher mortality in untreated colonies only in 2003 (χ2= 4.52, P < 0.05).

When all 7 years (1999 to 2005) of the experiment were included, we found no significant difference between the annual mortality of VSB (12.46% ± 0.92) and treated (9.57% ± 1.59) colonies (χ2= 0.42, P = 0.52).

The percentage of initial colonies surviving after the 7 year period was not statistically different between VSB (45.1%) and treated control colonies (56.5%) (χ2= 0.70, P = 0.40).

In the first group of VSB colonies, 5 of the 12 original colonies survived more than 11 years without treatment and the average survival was 9.8 ± 0.7 years (mean ± SE).

In the second group of colonies, the average survival of the VSB colonies was 6.54 ± 0.25 years and 5.86 ± 0.21 years in western France (n = 30) and in Avignon (n = 52), respectively. The average survival of the treated colonies was 6.63 ± 0.3 years and 6.78 ± 0.2 in western France (n = 30) and in Avignon (n = 55), respectively. The survival times are minimum values and minimum estimates as experimental colonies were still alive in 2006 and survival times of the colonies before monitoring was not included.

Now, that seems quite clear to me, no statistical difference, but hey, perhaps French bees are stronger than British bees. There are tens of thousands of hives in a 20 kilometre radius from where I live and most of them are I understand untreated, (and swarm of course, it's a bit difficult when, as some have more than a thousand hives spread all over the place).

Chris

 

[RoofTops]

These would be the French bees we hear so much about as they are apparently dying in large numbers.

The bee farmer I referred to who has typical losses of 3% to 4% has therefore colonies that on average last a minimum of 25 years. This is a bit longer than the 6 years or so reported in your study. He treats of course.

 

[Chris Luck]

These would be the French bees we hear so much about as they are apparently dying in large numbers.

Yeah, right. I can't comment on what you read that's been hyped up but it isn't the case round these parts. In fact the media reporting of most of these "bee" matters is abysmal, no surprise there. More people with an agenda, let's face it bad news sells and of course if people kept bees less intrusively there wouldn't be much to talk about - would there?

This is a bit longer than the 6 years or so reported in your study.

Again, one more time and then I must get on outside..

Average 7.9 years with some colonies at 15 years and going strong.

http://www.apimondia.org/2009/bee-health/symposia/Honeybees%20surviving%20Varroa%20destructor%20infestations%20in%20France%20-%20LE%20CONTE%20Yves.pdf

Whichever way you try to pick away at this it's quite clear that bees can survive without treatments, treatments that build up one way or another in the wax, in the hive and in the wider environment and inevitably the honey that is supposed to be so special.

Chris

 

[RoofTops]

This is priceless. Average 7.9 years compared to a minimum of 25 years for my beefarmer. His average is more than 25 years.

From the outset I never said bees can't survive without treatment but the experience to date in the UK is that for the vast majority of beekeepers it is necessary - otherwise they lose colonies.

 

[oliver90owner]

Rooftops,

With all due respect your beefarmer is requeening on a regular basis. The colonies from year to year are entirely different and simply not related in any way (apart from the origin of the queens, maybe).

That is in no way comparable with the statistics from France.

We are into 'lies, damn lies, and statistics' again. Or is it like comparing apples with oranges?

regards, RAB

 

[Chris Luck]

Quite so RAB, it is quite clear in the study that there were no manipulations in either the "no treatment" and the "controls" and all the colonies were allowed to swarm, succeed or fail - only inspections and mite counts were carried out.

The water can indeed get very muddy, but I'm not saying that treated bees don't survive, I'm just saying that untreated bees can also survive and providing some empirical evidence from a reliable source with no agenda to support my own experience. INRA are probably as objective as you will get.

Chris

 

[belinda bee]

Just a quick question has anyone used a o/a vapouriser as i am interested in buying one as i have boxes of o/a crystals and if anyone has used them are they effective ? many thanks

 

[Monsieur Abeille]

Just a quick question has anyone used a o/a vapouriser as i am interested in buying one as i have boxes of o/a crystals and if anyone has used them are they effective ? many thanks

I think Afermo's your man to PM - very keen vapouriserist(?)

 

[oliver90owner]

I have sublimated in the past. Thousands of others have, too. I considered it for a couple colonies this winter but decided against treatment.

I see no significance of the 'oxalic acid crystals' you have - you could spray sublimate or trickle, it makes no difference to the oxalic acid.

Plenty of references on the net to efficacy, if that is what you are asking? Oxalic acid kills varroa.

Yes they are effective in sublimating the oxalic acid, if that is your enquiry?

Mine is a home made sublimator -3 diesel engine glow plugs inserted into a machined aluminium base with a dish to retain the acid and holes to insert the plugs. Pretty (or not so pretty, in this case) simple affair, but it works - heat the oxalic acid and it first loses it's water of crystallisation then sublimes at 162 degrees Celsius; immediately (or almost) returns to a solid as a fog which permeates the hive. Job done.

Regards, RAB