# Organic Methoeds of Mite Control



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

After reading through numurous threads about different methoeds of mite control, I thought it might be helpful to the new folk (me included) to have all the different methoeds included in one thread to make reading and understanding these methoeds alittle bit easier. So if you guys would be so kind as to discuss methoeds and procudures for different treatments here it would really help.
Some of the ones I know about are:
powdered sugar: what kind of sugar do you use? (don't go gee powdered sugar either  ) According to Mann Lake's catalog there is a specfic sugar, but I have questions as to wether plain old powdered sugar would work as well and be cheaper).
FGMO
OA
Things put in smoker:
Tobacco (I heard this was toxic to bees?)
Sumac
Black walnuts
These lists go on and on, maybe we could put it all together so we don't keep asking the same questions over and over. Thanks.

peggjam


----------



## 2BorNot2B (May 13, 2005)

Mann Lake sells a Wooden Varoa Screen Trap. You use your regular bottom board. The space that is created allows mites to fall through to the bottom so they can't crawl back into the hive. The catalog says that it is to be used on conjunction with a sticky board. The one that I got is a drawer style so I don't need to remove the hive bodies to clean the bottom board. I have heard that one can just spray the drawer with PAM or some other sooking spray the mites stick to the spray. I am told this will reduce mite populations by 40%.


----------



## indypartridge (Nov 18, 2004)

Regarding the use of powdered suger: found this link on another thread; it was simple enough for a beginner like me to understand:
http://bwrangler.litarium.com/varroa-blaster/


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Plain old icing (powdered) sugar does knock at least some mites down and is at least non-toxic to everything else. Must be kept bone dry though as it is hygroscopic.

Screened bottom boards stop stray live mites from migrating back into the hive, so certainly help, esp. in monitoring the effectiveness of other treatments.

Tubular hive bottoms (a row of parallel plastic tubes/pipes with 1-2mm gaps, arranged vertically below frames) are said to be v. effective. 

Organic acids work but need very careful handling and dosing.

Some swear by small cell; I prefer natural cell (as in TBHs). Less stress for bees, less room for varroa.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Try a search of this forum on whatever method you want to research. There is tons of information on all of them.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Buckbee:

I suspect small cell and natural cell are one and the same.

peggjam


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> I prefer natural cell (as in TBHs). Less stress for bees, less room for varroa.


Buckbee, are you using only natural cell or are you also using other methods for varroa control?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I suspect small cell and natural cell are one and the same.

Kind of sort of. 4.9mm foundation will result in more uniform cells than natrual cells. Natural cells will run from 4.6mm to 5.1mm for worker brood. 4.9mm foundation with large cell bees will result in mostly 5.1mm the firs try and 4.9mm the second try.

4.9mm is a much more natural size than 5.4m (standard foundation) but natural comb varies much more.


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

Dear peggjam,
One thing that I have really noticed in my own operation is that when you REALLY turn your attention to getting and maintaining a handle on your mite populations, the problem of mites become very easy to manage.
In addressing my fellow beekeepers here in Oregon, I have a standard speach:
"We have to be as good of mitekeepers as we are beekeepers".
We have,for the forseeable future, two populations that we must continually manage in our hives: honeybees and varroa.
The thing is, we are managing them in two different directions.
We do everything to manage our honeybee populations for a peak population that matches the honeyflow. At the same time we are managing the varroa for the lowest population directly after.
Mite control strategies are designed in the opposite direction of honeybee brood timing.
Testing is the most important thing.
First, test for varroa levels.
Second, and this is the most important thing of the day we are in; test the efficacy of the treatment(s) that you use.
As humans, we often respond to problems with "solutions" that do nothing more than make us feel better. However, they are total failures in resolving the problem.
I am aware of at least two "mite treatments" that are talked about ad-nauseum that are a compleate waste of time and money as stated by our nation's finest authorities.
But boy it sure feels like you are doing something!!!
Testing is the answer. The proof is in the test results, not in how good the "treatmant"makes us feel.
Check out www.mitegone.com and read about varification testing.
This is very important regardless of the strategy employed.
Harry


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Harry:

Thank you for taking the time to address the topic in this thread. My entire idea here was to get mountains of relevent data into one thread so it was easy for new beekeepers to access this information, have it upto date, and in one spot, so there would be no need to do searches for information that was presented awhile ago, and could be outdated. So we have one new piece of information, that monitoring mite levels is important. Can we build on that with specfic treatments, procedures, and why this treatment works. Who knows, we might all learn something from everyones colletive expecerances(sp). Thanks.

peggjam


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

peggjam:

The difference between 'small cell' and 'natural cell' is that the former is achieved by providing a specific small cell foundation, requiring the bees to build worker cell at that size, whereas natural cell means letting the bees build what size (and shape) they choose to build. If you look at natural comb, you will see that bees build a range of sizes varying according to their position and by the season.

I'm only just re-starting my TBH/natural cell experiments after a year's break, so will report later on how successful I have been with mite control.

Right now, the SW English spring is a stop/start affair - mostly cold, windy and wet.


----------



## Robert Brenchley (Apr 23, 2000)

More stop than start so far. The bees are doing OK, but there's no sign of my parsnips.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>My entire idea here was to get mountains of relevent data into one thread so it was easy for new beekeepers to access this information, have it upto date, and in one spot,

Perhaps a noble idea, but, one should think of this Biological Beekeeping Forum as such. And in as much a more organized index searchable by any catagory.

>So we have one new piece of information, that monitoring mite levels is important.

New? Hardly. Anyone dealing with mites for any time has had to monitor to know the condition of their bees and hive health. The problems that have arisen with wholesale treatments without monitoring is what hastened the the varroa's resistance to chemicals.

Monitoring has been advocated since the late 90's (that I know of) when I started beekeeping.

The 'search' tool on this forum is your friend, use it wisely.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Varoa Screen Trap...I have heard that one can just spray the drawer with PAM or some other sooking spray the mites stick to the spray. I am told this will reduce mite populations by 40%.

I would not count on that at all. If you get a 25% drop in Varroa population I would be surprised. Not that I don't like SBB, but I would not count on them to control the Varroa. The are useful for monitoring and useful for improving ventilation and useful for improving the effeciency of other methods such as powdered sugar or FGMO or even the chemical methods such as Apistan or Checkmite.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Bullseye Bill:

New as in this thread. And I see no reason as to why we as a community couldn't get all the information on organic mite control into one thread that would answer alot of questions without endless searches and off-topic responses. So either add relevent information or don't bother to post. 

peggjam


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>So either add relevent information or don't bother to post. 

Oh, my!  

The problem to trying to put all information in one single thread is that it makes it too user unfriendly. That is the reason that Barry will not let any thread run over fifteen pages. Once the thread gets too long it is nearly impossible to find relivant posts through a search engine. 

Say if someone who wants to know a particular point on essential oils, they may have to wade through any number of pages in this thread when it could have been easily found in a one or two page thread about that single topic.

In femineeze: When there is too much in your purse, it makes it too hard to find the lipstick.

Another problem is that once this thread is over a few days old without any new posts it is lost in the back pages and would have to be found with a search anyway.

BTW, telling me not to post is like peeing in the wind.

My favorite post on treatments by MB:
http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000345#000012 

http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000269#000001 

http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000389#000005 

http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000347#000001 

http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=002481#000001

Hope it helps,


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Sorry I ever advanced this idea, by the way your talking to the Jim end of peggjam, so your femineeze joke, while cute, is really irrelivent. 

peggjam


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

>>In femineeze: When there is too much in your purse, it makes it too hard to find the lipstick.

Ha ha! I wouldn't have dared say that....


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> So either add relevent information or don't bother to post.


just because someone starts a thread doesn't authorize them to say what can be posted to it.

Bill was thinking about trying some frozen candle experiments. With icy responses such as that he won't need a freezer!


----------



## eris (May 6, 2005)

> I am aware of at least two "mite treatments" that are talked about ad-nauseum that are a compleate waste of time and money as stated by our nation's finest authorities.
> But boy it sure feels like you are doing something!!!


Harry,
As a new beekeeper can you tell me which two methods your talking about?
j


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I am aware of at least two "mite treatments" that are talked about ad-nauseum that are a compleate waste of time and money as stated by our nation's finest authorities.

Yes, what are they, and who, among our Nation's finest authorities, have throroughly tested them, and where are the results of the tests?


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

Mr. Bush,
You left out the next two sentances after my quote which was THE point.
"But boy it sure feels like you are doing something!!!
Testing is the answer. The proof is in the test results, not in how good the "treatmant" makes us feel."
We can no longer treat by faith.
For the useless treatments and and test results, start going backward on your issues of ABJ.
I visit with you and all of the other fine board members here to discuss what DOES work, not to undercut members faith in feelgood "treatments".


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Monitoring is how we sort the faith from the works. I've always advocated it.

Also an understanding of the mites is essential to understanding the monitoring. If you monitor and there are a lot of mites and you treat (with whatever makes you feel good) and there are more mites dropping that seems good and probably is good, but a week later you may see the same mite drop as before the treatment, not because the treatment didn't work, but because the mites are constantly emerging (not to mention robbers bringing them back). I've seen many question proven treatments because of these kinds of numbers. I've also seen many question alternative treatments because of the exact same kind of numbers. I've also seen "proven" treatments fail because of resistance or whatever. If you don't monitor and take into account the emerging mites you'll never be able to sort out the difference between failing because of resistance or just more mites emerging.

I wish it was all more clear cut. It leaves a lot of beginners very discouraged and confused. But you have to understand the Varroa mites and you have to monitor their numbers and it's probably helpful to have a few different options in your arsenal. Obviously if you treat (assuming your solution involves treating) four times a week apart each time you should start seeing a decrease in the number of mites you kill and in the number falling naturally.

As much as I say all of this, and I do mean it, I am getting lazy, as I find no significant numbers of Varroa mites to count anymore.


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

My approach to your valid points, is verification testing during the 24 hours after treatments are introduced into the hive.
I learned the concept from Mr. Bill Ruzika of Mitegone Inds:
In a balanced hive in the mid to late summer up to 80% of the varroa mites are sealed in cells with larva and pupea.
If hives are tested for natural drop and found to exceed the acceptable threshold limit, a clean sticky board should be installed for PRECICELY 24 hrs along with the treatmant.
You should hope to see 20 times the natural drop numbers in the first 24 hrs after treatment.
Lets do the math:
Daily natural drop = 28
28 X 120 = 3360 total mites in the hive.
AT LEAST 20% of the total mites in the hive are in the phoretic stage and should drop in the 1st 24 hours. later on in the year as brood decreases we could see the multiplier approach 30% in doomed hives.
3360total mites X 20% (.20) + 672 mites that should drop from an effective, and effectivly introduced treatment in the 1st 24 hours.
20 X 28 = 560 close enough.
The math works out, and makes sense to me.
(Makes me feel good too!)
Mr.Ruzika's web page is :
www.mitegone.com
Does this jive with you?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> a clean sticky board should be installed for 
> PRECICELY 24 hrs...

Studies at Penn State have shown 24 hours to be
too brief a period for good natural drop data.
They suggest 3 days, to eliminate the temperature
and weather factors, which can introduce variations.
(Divide your count by 3 to get a "daily" number,
or use the Penn State/Great Lakes IPM
"checkerboard".)

> 28 X 120 = 3360 total mites

Numbers like the above are utter nonsense to me,
as they would mean very different things for
large bee populations versus small populations.
While one certainly can estimate bee populations,
it is more reliable to compare drop tallies over
time, and track the CHANGE in mite drop over time.


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

OOPS!!!!
Please forgive me, but I Boo, Booed!
I meant to say, (and I edited the post) that a precise 24 hr drop count AFTER treatment is installed.
Also, and as I do respect and value your views, Mr.Fischer, labeling thousands of graduate student's hours of research findings as "utter nonsense" is a bit harsh in my view.
How can you endorse Dr. Sammataro's work on the Penn State pro-rate board and discount years of work from the same crew to assess the ratios?
That said, I have noticed a spread from 100 to 120 per mite.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> How can you endorse Dr. Sammataro's work on the 
> Penn State pro-rate board and discount years of 
> work from the same crew to assess the ratios?

I did not "discount" anything. Penn State's
more recent work itself has shown both that the
earlier methods (relying on 24-hour drop tests)
were simply inaccurate. Nancy Ostiguy of Penn
State covered the whole issue in detail at EAS 2004.

As for "thresholds" and other hand-waving
attempts to rationalize a single drop count
as a basis for a treatment decision, it takes
nothing more than common sense to realize that
mite populations, measured in ignorance of
prior mite population levels, are useless if
the count is not expressed in terms of a
"mites per bee" ratio.

At minimum, one wants to have a rough idea
of the colony (bee) population, or one will
end up treating the hives with the largest
mite drops, which will always be the largest
(and most productive) hives, rather than
the hives that actually need treatment.

Better to admit that what matters is the
rate of change in mite population growth,
and admit that multiple data points are
required to make a decision.

Other segments of agriculture have an easier
time, as they can talk about "pest per acre",
and inherently know how many pests per plant.

But who ever said that beekeeping was easy?


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

"As for "thresholds" and other hand-waving
attempts to rationalize a single drop count
as a basis for a treatment decision..."
Did I say this Mr. Fischer?  
I re-read the thread. 
The topic shifted to verification.
The only single drop test that I refered to was for the 24 hours of initial application of treatment.


----------

