"Varroa has lost its Sting" - BBKA news Dec 16

[Tony M]

Having looked through this article, I'm left wondering what to take from it.

At face value, the reported results show lower average winter losses in colonies not treated for varroa, in comparison to treated colonies.

Causes for winter losses are discussed, and the report notes that weather, queen failures and starvation were main factors. These seem (to me) not to be related to varroa or its treatment.

That leaves me a bit puzzled as to whether there may be a link between treatment (or not) and over-winter survival, or whether the lower loss rate in untreated colonies might be coincidental.

Please understand that I'm not trying to belittle the report in any way - just to better understand its context.

Thoughts welcome.

Tony

 

[SDM]

I'd take it with a pinch of salt.
I personally don't believe that all those claiming to be TF are. Nor do I believe they are completely honest in the self reporting of losses.

 

[Hivemaker.]

At face value, the reported results show lower average winter losses in colonies not treated for varroa, in comparison to treated colonies.

That would not surprise me in the slightest if the treated colonies were having oxalic acid trickled over them in winter.

 

[madasafish]

It's a self selecting survey. By which I mean that the participants are not selected independently but choose to report losses.
So you have to ask:-
Why do people fill in a survey?
Are they likely to tell the truth?
If they have bad losses, will they bother to fill in the survey with the truth, or not, or tell lies?
Are the repliers representative? Or are they representative of a few only?

Opinion polls - on politics especially - have huge problems with similar issues.They ask control questions to ascertain who is lying. And then adjust.

And if you ask the wrong questions, or the right questions in the wrong way, you may not get the truth.

I would treat any such survey as the result of amateur bunglers and ignore it.

 

[Gilberdyke John]

It's a self selecting survey. By which I mean that the participants are not selected independently but choose to report losses.
So you have to ask:-
Why do people fill in a survey?
Are they likely to tell the truth?
If they have bad losses, will they bother to fill in the survey with the truth, or not, or tell lies?
Are the repliers representative? Or are they representative of a few only?

Opinion polls - on politics especially - have huge problems with similar issues.They ask control questions to ascertain who is lying. And then adjust.

And if you ask the wrong questions, or the right questions in the wrong way, you may not get the truth.

I would treat any such survey as the result of amateur bunglers and ignore it.

Or from another point of view "There are lies, there are damned lies and then there are statistics!"

 

[Finman]

Why do people fill in a survey?
Are the repliers representative? Or are they representative

And if you ask the wrong questions, or the right questions in the wrong way, you may not get the truth.

it.

Varroa had been in UK 25 years. The survey gove something new information.

If treatment has been done too late, it seemingly kills.
If the hive has brood, oxalic trickling does not help.... So, it kills.

Many thinks that when he merely open the cover in winter, it is more dangerous than mite.
.

 

[Tony M]

Thanks for the views, everyone.

All of you make points that fit broadly with my thoughts.

A significant part of my concern was that it wasn't clear that the selection of colonies treated or not was "randomised", or that responders took one approach or the other, rather than a combination of both.

For example, if I had a number of colonies, I might choose to treat some on the basis of apparent need, and not treat the rest (based, for example, on very low varroa counts). In that case, the treated colonies may be generally weaker than the untreated ones, and do less well over winter in spite of the treatment - or, as Hivemaker suggests, the treatment itself could be having an adverse impact. It's also possible that I might lose colonies for other reasons (as discussed in the report) that were not at all connected with treatment or otherwise.

It's easy to criticise, of course, and it seems clear that the folk who put the report together were trying to add useful information on the topic - perhaps it is just that winter survival of colonies has so many complexities that it would be very hard to cover all aspects satisfactorily.

I think I'll just take note of the data, accepting that there seem to be many relevant questions and many variables associated with the topic - interesting, but no firm conclusions!

Cheers,

Tony

 

[Finman]

.You will get the answer next autumn.
.

 

[REDWOOD]

There seems to be a lot less varroa drop these days after treatment compared to years ago, it could because I vaporise only.

 

[Millet]

There seems to be a lot less varroa drop these days after treatment compared to years ago, it could because I vaporise only.

I wish that was the case for me.

 

[madasafish]

I wish that was the case for me.

+1
Prior years varroa drops were low - 20s.
This year I had one hive with 600-700.