# OAV three treatments over 21 days detrimental to bees?



## dlbrightjr (Dec 8, 2015)

They did not specify which method was harmful. I suspect it was not vaporization. We will see what the experts think.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I think the conclusion of danger to the bees may be confusion of Oxalic acid dribble and Oxalic acid vaporization. There have been quite a few references to the adviseability of only doing the dribble once a year to prevent "possible" damage to their equivalent of kidneys though some people have indeed done it more often. There is no similar caution about doing repeat exposures by the vaporization method.

"I’ve heard folks say that they are applying oxalic once-a-week for three weeks during the Summer months. This isn’t really advisable since it’s not very effective and can be detrimental to the bees."

This clip from the article brings question about how authoritative the information might be considered. The reason for insistence on using only the product with correct instruction labels and content certification is certainly understandable from a liability stance: We can see how advice transferred word of mouth is so easily misconstrued.


----------



## exmar (Apr 30, 2015)

Good point about the discussion being about OAD as opposed to OAV. What confuses me is the paragraph preceeding the quote that crofter posted.

"Does trickle or vaporization work better? A recent study at Sussex University examined the effectiveness of different doses and application methods on mite and bee mortality. The experiment involved 110 hives. The results showed sublimation (vaporization) was far better at reducing mite populations and showed no increase in bee mortality. "

It certainly never occurred to me that someone could be doing a dribble weekly X3, that would go against all the information out there.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

exmar said:


> Good point about the discussion being about OAD as opposed to OAV. What confuses me is the paragraph preceeding the quote that crofter posted.
> 
> "Does trickle or vaporization work better? A recent study at Sussex University examined the effectiveness of different doses and application methods on mite and bee mortality. The experiment involved 110 hives. The results showed sublimation (vaporization) was far better at reducing mite populations and showed no increase in bee mortality. "
> 
> It certainly never occurred to me that someone could be doing a dribble weekly X3, that would go against all the information out there.


It would, but my understanding is that the OAD is equally ineffective against the non-phoretic mites as the OAV. So I can see how someone could mistakenly apply the reasoning for the repeated OAV series to the OAD application.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

exmar;

Going against all the information out there is just about guaranteed to be a reason for some people to do something. Some people seem to pride themselves in reading instructions only at the bare minimum or not at all! Reading the instructions would destroy their creative satisfaction or something

I certainly did OA vaporizations closer together than a week and far more than three times in a row: so far I have not managed to jinx any colonies!


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

crofter said:


> "I’ve heard folks say that they are applying oxalic once-a-week for three weeks during the Summer months. This isn’t really advisable since it’s not very effective and can be detrimental to the bees."


That quote is from Jennifer Berry who recently stated it again in BC, the First three years. I wrote to Ms. Berry as to her source for the her statement that OAV isn't very effective and is detrimental or can be. Ms. Berry wrote back to me that it came from Dr. Ellis. I then wrote to Dr. Ellis and he wrote back to me that he had almost no experience with OAV. I again wrote back to Ms. Berry who stated she would check her references again........ I have not heard back from her regarding her source other than she said would do a retraction if she cannot verify.
I have searched hi & lo and cannot find any STUDY that says OAV applied multiple times results in ANY detrimental effect to the bees, brood or queen.

Dr. Ellis did a rather detailed study on OAD. I'll quote him here.

"In a study involving 60 colonies, I found that 3 applications of OA (trickled) at 7 day intervals in July did not result in measurable adult bee, brood or queen mortality."


----------



## dlbrightjr (Dec 8, 2015)

snl said:


> That quote is from Jennifer Berry. I wrote to her as to her source for the her statement that OAV isn't very effective and is detrimental or can be. Ms. Berry wrote back to me that it came from Dr. Ellis. I then wrote to Dr. Ellis and he wrote back to me that he had almost no experience with OAV. I again wrote back to Ms. Berry who stated she would check her references again........ I have not heard back form her regarding her source (if any) other than she would do a retraction if she cannot verify.
> I have searched hi & lo and cannot find any STUDY that says OAV applied multiple times results in ANY detrimental effect to the bees, brood or queen.


Hard to argue with that!


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Oxalic acid is hard on a bees gut if they ingest it, and it is especially harmful to day old larvae if they are fed it.

So if OA is used as a drizzle, it is mixed with sugar. This makes it likely some will be ingested, and that some may end up in honey stores. General anecdotal evidence is that one OA drizzle per year does not do significant damage to a hive. But more than one, or many drizzles, means an increasing amount is likely to end up in food stores and will kill young larvae when it is fed to them the following spring. One study found that hives that were given one drizzle in fall only had 85% of bee numbers in spring that the hives that were not given a drizzle had, and this was due to the suppression of successful brood raising.

Vaporising the OA into the hive largely gets around this issue because the OA is not mixed with sugar. It can therefore be done multiple times with negligable effect on the hive.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

snl said:


> That quote is from Jennifer Berry who recently stated it again in BC, the First three years. I wrote to Ms. Berry as to her source for the her statement that OAV isn't very effective and is detrimental or can be. Ms. Berry wrote back to me that it came from Dr. Ellis. I then wrote to Dr. Ellis and he wrote back to me that he had almost no experience with OAV. I again wrote back to Ms. Berry who stated she would check her references again........


Ms. Berry, a person of beekeeping authority and *presumably* some knowledge, putting into print an unverified statement like this is so typical of how misinformation gets onto and spreads throughout the web.

Thanks to snl for taking the time to run down this misstatement to its source. Unfortunately, this misstatement will continue to survive and confuse new beekeepers, and beehives will die because of it.




.


----------



## Tom1617 (Oct 17, 2016)

If you look back to October I had a thread where I did mite counts on a heavy infested hive. I ended up having to do 8 treatments to get the load down... Luckily my hive is alive and doing well to date... do the treatment 4 days apart by the way... 7 is too long.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Tom1617 said:


> If you look back to October I had a thread where I did mite counts on a heavy infested hive. I ended up having to do 8 treatments to get the load down... Luckily my hive is alive and doing well to date... do the treatment 4 days apart by the way... 7 is too long.


So true!

Looking at a sticky board, one sees that at the end of 3 days after an OAV, the mite fall goes to almost zero. I think this strongly shows that waiting any more than 4 days to do the next OAV treat is too long.

JMHO


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

shinbone said:


> Looking at a sticky board, one sees that at the end of 3 days after an OAV, the mite fall goes to almost zero. I think this strongly shows that waiting any more than 4 days to do the next OAV treat is too long.
> 
> JMHO


Remember tho, mites stay phoretic anywhere from 4-14 after exiting the cell. Also know, you'll never get them all.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

snl said:


> Remember tho, mites stay phoretic anywhere from 4-14 after exiting the cell.


True, but I don't think it is the "phoretic-ness" of the mites that is the issue, it is that the OA is no longer effective after 3 days. More than 3 days after an OAV treatment, the mites are again happily running around the hive with impunity. Don't let them do that - hit'em again with the OAV!


----------



## exmar (Apr 30, 2015)

Thanks for all the responses, very interesting and informative, particuarly from snl. I plan on continuing as previously stated, one more treatment this spring, then the "X3" cycle in the fall unless I see something during inspections that indicates otherwise.

Thanks again,


----------



## Tom1617 (Oct 17, 2016)

shinbone said:


> So true!
> 
> Looking at a sticky board, one sees that at the end of 3 days after an OAV, the mite fall goes to almost zero. I think this strongly shows that waiting any more than 4 days to do the next OAV treat is too long.
> 
> JMHO


Yep... after grumpy and I did the SBB counts in Oct I would do 3 or 4 day intervals 5 times if you have lots of capped... at least right after you take off the honey to allow for strong winter bee build up... Then one or two times on warm winter days


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

shinbone said:


> True, but I don't think it is the "phoretic-ness" of the mites that is the issue, it is that the OA is no longer effective after 3 days. More than 3 days after an OAV treatment, the mites are again happily running around the hive with impunity. Don't let them do that - hit'em again with the OAV!


Since they are still phoretic on the 7th day, you'll get them then.


----------



## Bkwoodsbees (Feb 8, 2014)

I switched from 4 treatments every 7 days to 6 treatments every 5 days last fall. Then a single treatment during broodless. I had a lot better results. Robert


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

Come on folks - read the label. OA is not effective getting to mites inside of capped Honey bee brood cells, hence the advice that one time methods, like dribble, are recommended only when the colony is without brood. OA is not a silver bullet to be used in all cases. You need to understand OA's limitations AND advantages in deciding when and how to use the product. OA is one arrow in the quiver.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

At beekeeping meetings, when chatting about this product to others, I’ve heard folks say that they are applying oxalic once-a-week for three weeks during the Summer months. This isn’t really advisable since it’s not very effective and *can be* detrimental to the bees. But there may be a way to still treat during the Summer months.

The above is copied from the referred to article. Emphasis mine. One of the things I remember when I read such comments is. It is also just as likely it cannot be. Sort of like flipping a coin. So now they have to establish it is more likely to be one or the other. Further information including some of what has been added to this thread. indicate it is not. Dribble may be if dosage is not carefully measured. But nothing has been found harmful about OAV with even greater number of treatments.
ON another note. it is not 3 treatments over 21 days. it is three treatments 7 days apart which is actually a total of a 15 day period. 3 treatments 7 days apart means 1st treatment day 1. 2nd on day 8 and third on day 15.


----------



## AHudd (Mar 5, 2015)

Would it be fair to say that no matter what treatment intervals one chooses the course of the treatment period needs to span an entire brood cycle?

Alex


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

AHudd said:


> Would it be fair to say that no matter what treatment intervals one chooses the course of the treatment period needs to span an entire brood cycle?
> 
> Alex


I would qualify it by saying that the course of *effective* treatment must span the entire brood cycle.

It has been suggested that perhaps there is some lessening effectiveness midway with 7 day applications. If there has been controlled studies to the contrary I would be interested in references.

Mites dont emerge in batches and their phoretic period is a variable of from 2 to 11 days though 4 days is considered typical. My unscientific feeling is such that I opt for treatments closer together than 7 days and increase the number of times: If there were noted harm from vaporization treatments or resistance concerns favored absolute minimizing of treatment then I would weigh that against my current practice.

There is no question that oa vaporization is not the best or easiest method of knocking down overall mite levels when a colony is actively brooding; if you miss a beat in the middle of a series you are not exactly back to square one but it seriously hurts your game.


----------



## Gumpy (Mar 30, 2016)

snl said:


> Since they are still phoretic on the 7th day, you'll get them then.


The original female mite emerges from the capped cell along with her offspring. The offspring require a few days of phoresy to mature before they can enter a cell about to be capped. It was unclear exactly how many days of phoresy are required for the offspring to fully develop. Some references indicated as few as 2 while others indicated up to 5. (I don't recall seeing anything that indicated the offspring were phoretic for 7 days.) It also appears the original female does not require that phoresy period between cycles and can reenter another cell almost immediately to reproduce again. Information I was able to find indicated she can do this at least twice, but possibly as many at 4 times in her life cycle. I switched to a 3 day treatment interval due to these variances, and because when treating every 6 days, my mite drops just kept increasing. The idea is to get the original female in between her cycles, as well as all phoretic offspring. My numbers finally came down. Unfortunately, I did lose two of my colonies this winter due to isolation starvation. Two are still healthy. While I don't believe mites were the primary cause of the demise of the two, I can't say for sure, and it's certainly possible it was a contributing factor. Going forward this year, I will treat OAV at 3 day intervals for 8 treatments. I also intend to use a periodic single OAV to gauge mite load to tell when I need to do a full cycle of treatments, and will be performing sugar roll and alcohol wash at the same time for comparison.


----------



## larrypeterson (Aug 22, 2015)

If I may,

I would not trade my "oxyvap" for anything! However, I mixed food grade glycerin with OA and heated it up to about 180 degrees until it completely dissolved, then gave 2 hives a treatment with an insect fogger. Bees seem to be just fine with no adverse effect. The treatment cycle of once every week for 3 weeks sounds good to me. My problem is that it takes so much time to treat the whole yard with the battery powered unit. I do not know if this experiment will be effective as I do not see enough drone cells to pull out and examine for mites. Maybe in a month from now.

Thank you for tolerating me, LP


----------



## Tom1617 (Oct 17, 2016)

Yep... the SBB counts you and i did showed that at 7 day intervals you would treat forever to get a mite infested hive under control if ever... 5 treatments 4 days apart or 6 treatments 3 days apart in Aug or Sept. Then one clean up in winter... Maybe a tester right before the honey super goes on. In fact a neighbor buddy lost his hive to mites (lab tested) he blindly (no SBB) did 3 @ 7 day intervals with my oav set up. While I watching the mite drop upped my treatment due to the SBB counts marching higher and higher @ 7 day intervals... can't wait to treat with new theory next fall and compare notes again


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

Andrew Dewey, You speak like one of our experts who recommended such things as screened bottom boards and the sugar shake method which are both not worth a whit. Furthermore a practice of using oxalic acid vapor which of course the experts did not produce but came instead from years of use by European beekeepers and is now being successfully used by many beekeepers who generally would keep their losses at sustainable levels and is now ridiculed by the experts who have provided most beekeepers with nothing else but criticism and useless IPM methods.
Johno


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

johno;

The echo of your last post is still ringing, but I think you fired a shot at the wrong guy there, or have mistaken his message. Andrew's arrows are never far from the mark. You have to get pretty aggressive and repetitive with OA vapor or dribble, to knock down mite numbers when the bees are brooding. The instructions are not misleading about that aspect.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

crofter said:


> It has been suggested that perhaps there is some lessening effectiveness midway with 7 day applications. If there has been controlled studies to the contrary


That's true because the bees start carrying the crystals out. They see it as "junk" that needs to be removed. The more populous the hive (when of course the bees are flying) the faster it is removed. What I hear from BioVet (the maker of the Varrox) is that it's about 3 days max before it's removed.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I have not seen much for crystals large enough for the bees to grapple with but no doubt the dust goes out on their clothes and the wind blows it away! anyways no argument that the bees activities are a factor; I thought of it as turning into an acidic moist film in short order rather than remain a dust. 

We have the EPA approval recommendations as a hymn book we have to hold up in front of us even if we do _ad lib_ a bit  ; you more so than I


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

I do not look at it so much as treating every mite. but treating while every cell in the hive was uncapped. IF it is true that OAV is only effective for 3 days then this would not be reliable.

Next of interest to me is this immediate reentry of a cell by the mature female. This female just emerged in an area of the brood nest where all the cells are capped, or are recently emerged. Those cells in the immediate location will not be capped again for at least 8 days and that is if the queen is there waiting to lay in the cell again. Otherwise if the queen is laying well the next available nearly to be capped cell could be quite a ways away. I am even more interested in what happens with that newly emerged bee the mite is riding on and how soon might it be in the area of cells a mite would enter. A small brood nest might make it more likely that there is a cell close enough to go into. Otherwise I would think there is a delay of at least a couple of days before that adult female mite is presented with the opportunity to enter a cell. of course she may go in search of one on her own. I so need an observation hive.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

AHudd said:


> Would it be fair to say that no matter what treatment intervals one chooses the course of the treatment period needs to span an entire brood cycle?
> 
> Alex


I would say it needs to span at least one capped cell period. that is more like 13 days. I also tend to think the more treatments you can pack in that 13 day period may produce better results.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Remember, that most mites stay phoretic 4-14 days after emergence. They do not immediately renter a cell.


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

Hi Crofter, maybe I was a little hard on Andrew, but that is the kind of talk that comes from our beekeeping establishment, who I might add do push the IPM methods I have mentioned to newbees. When I mention to the newbees that if they do not control their mite population they will lose their bees and we generally get to FA and OA then I explain the OAV system and get the story that it cannot be used more than once a year. I go through the whole story about doing it multiple times after harvest and then to do mite checks maybe 3 weeks after and a couple during the broodless periods in the start of winter. I am frequently told that the experts say it may be done only once. Thereafter I am generally asked to supply nucs to the newbees as I seem to be one of the few in my area with surplus bees. So go figure.
Johno


r


----------



## Gumpy (Mar 30, 2016)

snl said:


> Remember, that most mites stay phoretic 4-14 days after emergence. They do not immediately renter a cell.


Where did you come up with those numbers? I've not found any published information that sets an upper limit at 14 days. 

Also, what about the original mature female who re-emerges. Have you found any published information that indicates how long she remains phoretic before entering another cell? 

Finally, with regard to Daniel Y's comment, it's my understanding that the adult female enters the cell one or two days prior to capping and hides under the developing larva to avoid detection. I believe this would effectively shield her from OAV even though the cell is not capped.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

johno I agree with the dogmatism of some of the "so called" experts. I think a lot of beekeeper indoctrination classes promote the sensational and the audience is statistically prone to accept it. I came in a different door!

It is maddeningly so but it reminds me of a quote I saw that was something like this "The bull**** asimmetry: the amount of energy needed to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude greater than what it takes to produce it!

I think Andrew was pointing out the handwringing about multiple treatments being needed when bees are brooding. I found that to be so too but that is no surprise. I am a strong proponent of OA but if I had a colony with high counts, say in September, I would be reaching for Formic Acid. We will see how the Oxalic in Glycerine pans out this coming season. I have a pretty easy go of it here because of relative isolation but I dont want to be caught by any surprises.


----------



## BadBeeKeeper (Jan 24, 2015)

johno said:


> Hi Crofter, maybe I was a little hard on Andrew, but that is the kind of talk that comes from our beekeeping establishment, who I might add do push the IPM methods I have mentioned to newbees...


All Andrew said was "*Pay attention to the instructions*, because a one-shot application such as a dribble must be done during a broodless period, as it does not kill mites in cells. You have to understand how the product works in order to decide when and how to use which method of application."

All he is advocating is 'common sense' in following instructions and using the product correctly. He seems to be a fairly smart feller, and not prone to spouting bovine scatology.

It seems to me that some of the biggest problems with products and applications, are due to people who can't or won't read, understand and follow the instructions in order to use the product/method correctly.

'IPM' does not dictate any particular product or method. IPM is simply a *strategy* of combining methods, products, and practices designed to work together to enhance/increase the effectiveness of pest control, in a manner and to a degree greater than using only one product or method by itself. The products and methods to use are up to the individual. 'IPM' is not just bovine scat calling for only 'natural' or 'organic' products/methods, it can and does include other methods such as synthetic products if the individual determines that such a strategy is required to meet his standards of effectiveness.

One person's IPM strategy might include a rotation of applications of Formic Acid-Coumaphos-Formic Acid-Fluvalinate-Formic Acid over a multi-year period in order to effectively control mites while minimizing the possibility of creating resistance to any particular product. This is certainly not 'all natural', but it -is- an IPM strategy.


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

Badbeekeeper, one of the things that I am trying to point out is the original instructions for the use of OAV is beekeeper derived not establishment expert derived. Those of us that have been using this system successfully for years know what its strengths and weaknesses are and so treat accordingly and I try to stress the taking of mite counts to verify that the treatment was successful. As for formic acid I have near 5 gallons of it in a refrigerator which I can use from time to time but have found that OAV is far more consistent. As a matter of fact I have used nothing else other than organic acids for mite control in the seven years that I have kept bees.
Johno


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

johno said:


> Andrew Dewey, You speak like one of our experts who recommended such things as screened bottom boards and the sugar shake method which are both not worth a whit. Furthermore a practice of using oxalic acid vapor which of course the experts did not produce but came instead from years of use by European beekeepers and is now being successfully used by many beekeepers who generally would keep their losses at sustainable levels and is now ridiculed by the experts who have provided most beekeepers with nothing else but criticism and useless IPM methods.
> Johno


Sorry Johno but you are wrong. SBB and Sugar are useless as far as I am concerned and I have never encouraged their use. Also OAV is NOT used as much in Europe as OAD, and then they wait for the colony to be broodless. I am not knocking OA. Bad info, yes.


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

OK Andrew what am I wrong about. OAD in Europe is old news, OAV is used more often and as tests have shown OAV is superior to OAD as far as efficacy is concerned and also does not appear to damage bees at all and there is minimal disruption to the colony no more than 15 minutes and the colony is back to normal. Where have all the OAV devices been coming from? Europe of course. Now I do not just talk about this useless OAV treatment I have been using this for 5 years and my bees are doing just fine with less than 10% winter losses and over 100% increases during the summer so Obviously I must be doing it all wrong. The info is right there OAV kills phoretic mites and you just have to continue treating on a cycle that is going to get those cell bound mites to get caught when they emerge from the cells. OK it is hard work but new devices are starting to make it easier and easier and if you cannot take the hard work you will fail as a beekeeper anyhow.
Johno


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Andrew Dewey said:


> Sorry Johno but you are wrong. SBB and Sugar are useless as far as I am concerned and I have never encouraged their use. Also OAV is NOT used as much in Europe as OAD, and then they wait for the colony to be broodless. I am not knocking OA. Bad info, yes.


This still does not mean they did not develop it or practice it. From what I see the experts got ahold of a method that was in use for years and now can't figure out a thing about why it works but mange to confuse the issue until many can't figure out how to use it. Suddenly concerned about dribble of vapor. dosages. long term effects. And since the Einstein's can't come up with answers with their collective wisdom it leaves those many with unanswered concerns and doubts. I tend to find the BS by following the stench.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Gumpy said:


> Where did you come up with those numbers? I've not found any published information that sets an upper limit at 14 days.
> Also, what about the original mature female who re-emerges. Have you found any published information that indicates how long she remains phoretic before entering another cell?


http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/misc/bees/varroa_mite.htm


----------



## Gumpy (Mar 30, 2016)

snl said:


> http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/misc/bees/varroa_mite.htm


Thank you. I believe I have read this one in the past. The term "foundress" is one I recall seeing. 

"The phoretic period may last 4.5 to 11 days when brood is present in the hive ..."

Although there's no source given to any scientific study on which this claim is based.

It further states, "... female mites living when brood is present in the colony have an average life expectancy of 27 days ..." which would not seem to allow for more than two cycles within capped brood. The article does not discuss the adult female (foundress, is the term they use) emerging and re-entering another cell. Somewhere I recall reading she can live to produce 3 or 4 cycles of offspring, though now I don't know where I read that. 

Regardless, if we assume the claim regarding phoretic period is accurate, a 7 day OAV treatment cycle is clearly too long. In order to ensure maximum efficacy with regard to emerging Varroa offspring, you must ensure a treatment occurs within the 4.5 day minimum phorecy period. This is the reason I changed my treatment schedule to a 3 day cycle.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Gumpy said:


> Regardless, if we assume the claim regarding phoretic period is accurate, a 7 day OAV treatment cycle is clearly too long. In order to ensure maximum efficacy with regard to emerging Varroa offspring, you must ensure a treatment occurs within the 4.5 day minimum phorecy period. This is the reason I changed my treatment schedule to a 3 day cycle.


Not sure about that. If an OAV treatment is effective for 3 days after treatment, those mites that emerge during and after 3 days will still be phoretic and "vaporized" on the 2nd round. This has worked for me.
Here's another study and there are more.
http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center...Acid/Text-Version/Life-Cycle-of-V.-destructor


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Gumpy said:


> Regardless, if we assume the claim regarding phoretic period is accurate, a 7 day OAV treatment cycle is clearly too long. In order to ensure maximum efficacy with regard to emerging Varroa offspring, you must ensure a treatment occurs within the 4.5 day minimum phorecy period. This is the reason I changed my treatment schedule to a 3 day cycle.


Perhaps the 3-4 day treatment period is an effective schedule, but how then do we explain the success of so many that are treating 3 or 4 times at 7 days apart? It is not "clearly too long" if it works.

At times it may be prudent to forget about chasing studies for answers, and look at the evidence right before us. Like everything else in beekeeping, there are many variables. There is no "one" answer that fits all cases. Maybe you do need to treat at 3 or 4 day cycles in your situation, but there are many who do just fine at 7 days.


----------



## Gumpy (Mar 30, 2016)

Mike Gillmore said:


> Perhaps the 3-4 day treatment period is an effective schedule, but how then do we explain the success of so many that are treating 3 or 4 times at 7 days apart? It is not "clearly too long" if it works.
> 
> At times it may be prudent to forget about chasing studies for answers, and look at the evidence right before us. Like everything else in beekeeping, there are many variables. There is no "one" answer that fits all cases. Maybe you do need to treat at 3 or 4 day cycles in your situation, but there are many who do just fine at 7 days.


I can't explain their success. In fact, I can't even corroborate it as it seems like the majority of people do not do mite drop counts following treatments. When I was posting my results last fall, only a few people reported collecting actual mortality numbers. I'm not convinced that most people are not just following the conventional wisdom. That may suggest that it's not imperative to kill all mites, and the conventional treatment schedules are actually sufficient to do that. On the other hand if I'm not mistaken the overall winter loss rate for last winter was somewhere around 42%, although there never seems to be definitive proof of cause. Mites are always the first speculation, though, when someone posts a loss report on the board, even in the absence of any information.

I do know that when I was using 6 day intervals, my numbers kept climbing every week. I also found there seemed to be a dearth of actual scientific based information regarding Varroa life cycle and treatment, while there was a plethora of speculation and conjecture on the same. Seems to me any official recommendations on treatment schedules should be based on some sort of scientific data. I agree there is no one answer that fits all cases, hence the change in my own procedure. I can only share my results, thought processes and opinions and let others agree or disagree. I evaluate contrary opinions and data offered by others and make adjustments to my own procedures. It's a cyclical process with feedback. Ultimately, the goal is to find a procedure that works for me to keep my bees alive.


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

I have read in a study about mite resistance in Mf Scutelata that female phoretic mites can live on bees for 2 to 3 months, one of the reasons I believe that brood breaks as a mite control is fictitious as the mites remaining will live longer than the workers in the hive so if a bee will live for 6 weeks and the mite from 8 to 12 weeks just do the math. I agree that this is a fine time to treat with OAV as the mites are then phoretic. Once again the Germans have a system of removing the queen and capped brood treating the remainder then treating the queen and that half when the brood has emerged and then combining the 2 halves if so desired. When removing the queen to a nuc for swarm control there is again another window for treating before the new queen begins laying.
Johno


----------



## dlbrightjr (Dec 8, 2015)

johno said:


> I believe that brood breaks as a mite control is fictitious
> Johno


I'm curious. Have you tried it?


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Gumpy said:


> That may suggest that it's not imperative to kill all mites, and the conventional treatment schedules are actually sufficient to do that.


That's a great point. When I used to count mites on the board religiously I was never able to reach a point where "all" of the mites were killed and the board was clean. It's not necessary. If treatments are done at the correct time of year, especially the single winter treatment, the bees quickly outbreed the mites during spring build up and do very well until the late summer dearth. 
But again, the variables are region and timing. This might not work for someone in the more southern states. 



Gumpy said:


> Ultimately, the goal is to find a procedure that works for me to keep my bees alive.


Agreed.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Brood breaks might not be so effective if you are surrounded by other bees and a substantial amount of robbing is ongoing but if Jim Lyon says he is making his entire population queenless yearly, and requeening every colony, I will put my money on the idea not being of fictitiononal value! I am sure other measures are contributing, but as Andrew Dewey said, another arrow in the quiver!


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

That brood breaks are an ideal time for treatment is in no doubt, however if there is no treatment and the varoa has a longer lifespan than the worker the math would indicate a higher density of mites to worker at the end of the break unless there is something eradicating the mites. One could surmise that bees grooming each other could tip the scales in favor of the workers but if this was true there would be no mites left in the hive after a 2 month brood break during winter. So what is the secret of the dead mites. I have also watched bees grooming each other in my OB hive and although that little mite is supposed to be blind while a bee is being groomed on its right hand side that little mite scoots across to the left hand side pretty smartly and lives to breed again. So where is the evidence of mites decreasing.
Johno


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

johno said:


> That brood breaks are an ideal time for treatment is in no doubt, however if there is no treatment and the varoa has a longer lifespan than the worker the math would indicate a higher density of mites to worker at the end of the break unless there is something eradicating the mites. One could surmise that bees grooming each other could tip the scales in favor of the workers but if this was true there would be no mites left in the hive after a 2 month brood break during winter. So what is the secret of the dead mites. I have also watched bees grooming each other in my OB hive and although that little mite is supposed to be blind while a bee is being groomed on its right hand side that little mite scoots across to the left hand side pretty smartly and lives to breed again. So where is the evidence of mites decreasing.
> Johno


I think it is just a conspiracy to make your puzzler sore, johno:scratch: They are messing with you!


----------



## larrypeterson (Aug 22, 2015)

If I might add my opinion,

I use the 7 day X3 oav. When I calculated the varroa cycle I settled on a "knock down" rather than a complete kill. Mel' D discussed the spread of varroa by drones that can travel far and wide and who are welcome in any hive they choose to enter. If they carry the mite I am sure they are sharing them with the host hives. I know the mites will again infest the hive one way or the other. I really love my "Oxyvap" but the downside is that it takes a lot of time for me to do all the colonies. For me, the 7 day X3 is a "reasonable solution to keep the colonies healthy and productive.

Thank you for tolerating me, LP


----------



## Tom1617 (Oct 17, 2016)

I'm with Grumpy on this... I was doing and reporting bottom board counts with grumpy and the amount of mites that dropped after a brood cycle while doing 6 or 7 days was staggering... it took many more treatments at shorter intervals to actually get the mites under control...


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Well . . . a 7 day OAV interval sounds reasonable: The OA is effective for 3 days after application; minimum phoretic period is 4 days; the mites that emerged after the 1st OAV application looses effectivity get hit by the 2nd OAV application before they go back into cells. 

But, there sure are lots of reports that an OAV interval of less than 7 days works better.

I wonder what is going on, and I wonder why we haven't seen a well constructed experiment to determine exactly what is the best OAV interval? 

Hello . . . Randy Oliver, where are you?


----------



## Gumpy (Mar 30, 2016)

Tom1617 said:


> I'm with Grumpy on this...


FYI, it's GUMPY. He only gets grumpy when people misspell his name! :lookout:



Actually, it's ok. It's a common mistake.


----------



## Tom1617 (Oct 17, 2016)

I nevery noticed it... grumpy sounds better. .. 

For everyone that thinks 7 days is most effective do something for me... next fall put a SBB and do the mite bb count at 7 day intervals and post results if possible ... After your third 7 day oav do a fourth after another 7 days. I think you will find what gRumpy and i found... lots of mites... lots... I don't want to treat after I put on honey supers or before I take them off, if I can help it... Last year I didn't treat unail Oct this year I will be treating in Aug -Septish at 3 or 4 day intervals for a cycle and then some. my total mite fall last year was over 5000... counted one by one.

That's just what I found, and this year I will test it again... I hope more people count this year and post results, I would love to see more data from others with the method they decide to use.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Gumpy said:


> I can't explain their success. In fact, I can't even corroborate it as it seems like the majority of people do not do mite drop counts following treatments. When I was posting my results last fall, only a few people reported collecting actual mortality numbers. I'm not convinced that most people are not just following the conventional wisdom. That may suggest that it's not imperative to kill all mites, and the conventional treatment schedules are actually sufficient to do that. On the other hand if I'm not mistaken the overall winter loss rate for last winter was somewhere around 42%, although there never seems to be definitive proof of cause. Mites are always the first speculation, though, when someone posts a loss report on the board, even in the absence of any information.
> 
> I do know that when I was using 6 day intervals, my numbers kept climbing every week. I also found there seemed to be a dearth of actual scientific based information regarding Varroa life cycle and treatment, while there was a plethora of speculation and conjecture on the same. Seems to me any official recommendations on treatment schedules should be based on some sort of scientific data. I agree there is no one answer that fits all cases, hence the change in my own procedure. I can only share my results, thought processes and opinions and let others agree or disagree. I evaluate contrary opinions and data offered by others and make adjustments to my own procedures. It's a cyclical process with feedback. Ultimately, the goal is to find a procedure that works for me to keep my bees alive.


First, corroborate by whos standards. It seems to me most don't think the evidence you require is necessary. I corroborate my treatments work in the fact my hives don't die. I determine to treat by the condition of my hive as well. and none of it has anything to do with mite drops. So I have to call into question the reliability of the method you prefer. I have looked at mite drop, washes and shakes and rejected them as far to variable.

3 treatments at 7 day intervals has been developed as a reliable schedule with our without your particular criteria. You may need to go back a ways to find just how that was done if it is recorded at all. I am not sure anyone is going to recreate that discovery now that you have gotten involved with bees. Sort of like anyone is going to take the time to go back and establish bee space simply because you suspect it may not be correct. I tend to also think that if yo choose not to except correct understanding you will simply reject the next bit of information on similar reasoning.
I saw your thread on mite drop. I simply stopped following it at the point I considered it well beyond reliable. I simply am not buying those results. Something smells funny and like opening someone elses refrigerator. I don't take the time to find out what. I simply close the door.
I also don't think you are the only one counting dead mites by far. You may be the only one making as big of a deal about it. but plenty of beekeepers count mite drops.
So based upon the conclusions you have formed about mite counts. and the way you arrived at that conclusion. I assert (An assumption backed by some evidence) that this is similar to how you reach all your conclusions. Including that there is a reason to treat more frequently than 7 day intervals. Yet still you did not seem to be able to kill the mites in your hives. I have to at least consider that there is something else going on other than just interval.

As for scientific vs layman comments. that would be consistent with number of each. I also see far more beekeepers successfully keeping bees than I do scientists. maybe it is an actual experience thing. Maybe it is an actually doing it thing.

Again I don't think anyone is going to retrace the methods of discovery for your benefit. simple as that. Nearly everything even you do in keeping bees is simply doing what you where told because the person telling you told them to do it that way. Attempt to introduce new thinking and you will got shot down in a hail of how you disrespect the greats of the past. Regardless of how miserably the methods of the past greats fail today.


----------



## Gumpy (Mar 30, 2016)

I'm sure glad I happened to put on my patented Bovine Excrement Repellent underwear this morning! 

I'm just going to ignore the hatred and personal attack here, considering the source. 

Moving on...




shinbone said:


> Well . . . a 7 day OAV interval sounds reasonable: The OA is effective for 3 days after application; minimum phoretic period is 4 days; the mites that emerged after the 1st OAV application looses effectivity get hit by the 2nd OAV application before they go back into cells.
> 
> But, there sure are lots of reports that an OAV interval of less than 7 days works better.
> 
> ...



When I started reading about mites and OA late last summer, I came across some information that indicated some studies had been performed to determine the best dosage of OA to use. I recall it indicating they had tried various amounts and had settled on 2 grams for a double deep hive because using more didn't seem to produce any better results and they went settled on the lower amount for their recommendation. I don't recall if they also did a study on treatment interval. I can't find that article now and evidently didn't copy the URL to my notes.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

johno said:


> That brood breaks are an ideal time for treatment is in no doubt, however if there is no treatment and the varoa has a longer lifespan than the worker the math would indicate a higher density of mites to worker at the end of the break unless there is something eradicating the mites. One could surmise that bees grooming each other could tip the scales in favor of the workers but if this was true there would be no mites left in the hive after a 2 month brood break during winter. So what is the secret of the dead mites. I have also watched bees grooming each other in my OB hive and although that little mite is supposed to be blind while a bee is being groomed on its right hand side that little mite scoots across to the left hand side pretty smartly and lives to breed again. So where is the evidence of mites decreasing.
> Johno


You are correct in that mites do not necessarily decrease during a brood break (although some will die of natural causes). I think the proposed benefit of a brood break is that mites will not increase at the rate that they would have increased had you not restricted the queen. Since mite proliferation is exponential, it stands to reason that a brood break would slow the exponential growth of mites in the hive. But if I am going to the trouble of breaking the brood, I am going to hit it with OAV when broodless.


----------



## BadBeeKeeper (Jan 24, 2015)

Mike Gillmore said:


> Perhaps the 3-4 day treatment period is an effective schedule, but how then do we explain the success of so many that are treating 3 or 4 times at 7 days apart? It is not "clearly too long" if it works.
> 
> At times it may be prudent to forget about chasing studies for answers, and look at the evidence right before us. Like everything else in beekeeping, there are many variables. There is no "one" answer that fits all cases. Maybe you do need to treat at 3 or 4 day cycles in your situation, but there are many who do just fine at 7 days.


I think that the main variables are the individual situation (number of nearby keepers, and their mite loads), and the starting mite load of the individual. If you start with a low mite load, it is much easier to keep them under control. Mite reproduction is not linear and it takes time to reach 'critical mass'. If you keep disrupting their cycles while numbers are low, they will never get to 'critical mass', which is an optimum scenario, and even the longer treatment cycle will be effective.

On the other hand, if you start with a mite load that is already at or near 'critical mass', you have a larger number of mites that are not killed, which puts them further along the progression. More mites survive to reproduce, and on a 7-day treatment cycle it could be a near-constant battle just to stay even. Prudence would dictate an intense period of more frequent treatment at shorter intervals in order to 'get ahead of the curve'.

Once you've got ahead of them and get the population low again, a 7-day interval would be effective enough to keep them low.



Gumpy said:


> I can't explain their success. In fact, I can't even corroborate it as it seems like the majority of people do not do mite drop counts following treatments. When I was posting my results last fall, only a few people reported collecting actual mortality numbers. I'm not convinced that most people are not just following the conventional wisdom. That may suggest that it's not imperative to kill all mites, and the conventional treatment schedules are actually sufficient to do that.
> 
> I do know that when I was using 6 day intervals, my numbers kept climbing every week. *I also found there seemed to be a dearth of actual scientific based information regarding Varroa life cycle and treatment*, while there was a plethora of speculation and conjecture on the same.


I don't think the information is lacking, you just haven't found it. I have read so much over the last few weeks that I can't remember where I got all of it. Fortunately for me, I can read tons of crap and my brain works in such a way that the important stuff gets summarized and stored away, available for recall when I need it even though I may not remember precisely who said what when.

I also believe that it is not imperative to kill them all, though it would be nice. Based on their progressive reproduction rate, getting their numbers low and _keeping_ them low should be effective, even if you can't get rid of them entirely.



johno said:


> I have read in a study about mite resistance in Mf Scutelata that female phoretic mites can live on bees for 2 to 3 months, *one of the reasons I believe that brood breaks as a mite control is fictitious as the mites remaining will live longer than the workers in the hive so if a bee will live for 6 weeks and the mite from 8 to 12 weeks just do the math*. I agree that this is a fine time to treat with OAV as the mites are then phoretic.


I think you are spot-on here. I think that one of the reasons that Scutellata are more successful is due to the increased swarming tendency. The brood-break per se is not the effector, rather, it is the fact that the mite numbers are divided which interrupts the progression to 'critical mass'. (The other principle reason is the 40% failure rate of mites reaching sexual maturity in worker brood.)



johno said:


> That brood breaks are an ideal time for treatment is in no doubt, however if there is no treatment and the varoa has a longer lifespan than the worker the math would indicate a higher density of mites to worker at the end of the break unless there is something eradicating the mites.


Again, spot-on.



shinbone said:


> Well . . . a 7 day OAV interval sounds reasonable: The OA is effective for 3 days after application; minimum phoretic period is 4 days; the mites that emerged after the 1st OAV application looses effectivity get hit by the 2nd OAV application before they go back into cells.
> 
> But, there sure are lots of reports that an OAV interval of less than 7 days works better.
> 
> ...


Clue here: 



> Results showed that the status of the bees or time spent during the phoretic phase impacts neither reproduction parameters nor the Varroa vitellogenin genes levels of expression...In our study, the phoretic phase had a normalization effect on the mite vitellogenin gene expression since the high variability observed on prephoretic mites (i.e. random mites sampled at any point of their reproductive cycle) is reduced by the simulated phoretic phase, whether it is 3 or 7 days long.
> 
> The qualitative and quantitative changes of the phoresia did not influence any of the two genes studied. However, the levels of vitellogenin transcripts are lower in daughters than in mature adults at any stage of their cycle. Interestingly, it would support the idea that the newly born female mites need a phoretic phase to complete the maturation of their reproductive organs. The fact that the younger slightly pigmented daughters express VdVg1 and VdVg2 at lower levels than their older sisters could indicate that maturation of the mites’ reproductive system is marked by an increasing expression of vitellogenin, probably until it reaches the one of postphoretic females. In such a context, only the first phoretic phase in the parasite life would be essential to the mites. Therefore, it would be interesting to follow the newly born mites Vg gene expression after their transfer on bee nurses and to test which is the required time to become mature. *To date, results from several studies including ours have pointed out the subsequent negligible importance of the phoretic phase in the reproduction of mature females*. At this stage, phoresia would provide an advantageous way of locomotion for the parasite. Because the nurses give access to the brood cells, they are preferentially chosen by the parasites, even though foragers do not prevent them from reproducing.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4838260/

There is not a 'minimum' four day phoretic stage.

It is not a matter of the studies not existing, but of finding the appropriate studies that provide the information you need, and recognizing how that information is important.



Daniel Y said:


> First, corroborate by whos standards. It seems to me most don't think the evidence you require is necessary. I corroborate my treatments work in the fact my hives don't die. I determine to treat by the condition of my hive as well. and none of it has anything to do with mite drops. So I have to call into question the reliability of the method you prefer. I have looked at mite drop, washes and shakes and rejected them as far to variable.
> 
> 3 treatments at 7 day intervals has been developed as a reliable schedule with our without your particular criteria. You may need to go back a ways to find just how that was done if it is recorded at all. I am not sure anyone is going to recreate that discovery now that you have gotten involved with bees. Sort of like anyone is going to take the time to go back and establish bee space simply because you suspect it may not be correct. I tend to also think that if yo choose not to except correct understanding you will simply reject the next bit of information on similar reasoning.
> I saw your thread on mite drop. I simply stopped following it at the point I considered it well beyond reliable. I simply am not buying those results. Something smells funny and like opening someone elses refrigerator. I don't take the time to find out what. *I simply close the door.*
> ...


And you close the door on furthering your own understanding of the nature of the issue and the information provided.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Good find BBK. The study you cite confirms Gumpy's "foundress" mite argument above. The foundress could emerge on day 4 post-treatment and theoretically re-enter a brood cell on the same day, avoiding the OAV. If your hive is at, as BBK states, "critical mass", that is a hell of a lot of mature mites that are making their way back into cells before treatments #2 and #3. 

So a 3 X 7day treatment would still be very effective. But I can easily see where a 3 day interval would be more effective.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

shinbone said:


> I wonder what is going on, and I wonder why we haven't seen a well constructed experiment to determine exactly what is the best OAV interval?
> Hello . . . Randy Oliver, where are you?


Jennifer Berry is doing one this summer.

HOWEVER, in the Sept BC, there was an article from Shearer Turton (who did the research in fulfillment of his requirements for the Master Beekeeping Course at the University of Montanna, where in conclusion he wrote, "The oxalic acid applied 3 weeks in a row is an effective treatment for reducing mite load. The hives treated with OA saw a significant drop in mite count."

I would _*NOT*_ count on Randy for this type of study, he's now into "shop towels!!


----------



## Gumpy (Mar 30, 2016)

I agree with everything BKK just said regarding critical mass, and my failure to find the studies that must be there. The search continues. 

Regarding life expectancy of adult Varroa, the papers I've read recently indicate a life expectancy of 27 days in the presence of brood, and up to 6 months when broodless. In other words, the mature female dies early when actively reproducing, but when prevented due to lack of brood, she goes somewhat dormant and is able to extend her lifespan by about 5 months. PSM1212's comments on brood breaks is spot on. A brood break doesn't kill mites, it only interrupts their cycle, but is an excellent time to hit them with OAV when 100% are in the phoretic state. 

In the treatments I did last fall, I had two hives with SBB inserts. One of those hives had gone queenless in late July and I didn't get it recovered until the end of August, so it had roughly 2 weeks to a month of complete broodlessness. The other hive was queenright the entire summer. In my mite treatments, the hive which was queenless had an overall mite kill of half that of the hive that had no brood break (6700 vs. 13200). Initially I was surprised the mite load was as high as it was in that hive because my understanding at the time was that brood breaks decreased the mite load. Now I realize the mites were still there, but just waiting and not able to reproduce during that time. Had I known more and been prepared at that time, it would have been an excellent time to treat. Unfortunately that was too early in my education. 

I've done 3 separate treatments on my two remaining colonies (one of which is the lower count hive from last fall) since January. There was no brood when I did these treatments. I've garnered exactly 29 mites off those treatments. I'm suspicious, but hopeful that I'll be starting the season with a low mite count, so unlike last year when I didn't have a clue and waited way too long to get one regarding mites, this year I intend to stay on top of it and keep their numbers low and not let them get a foot hold this year.


----------



## Tom1617 (Oct 17, 2016)

I am hoping to start with a very low mite load this year and treat sooner after removing honey. That's why I want to sbb count again in fall to see if this 3 - 4 day fall interval - 1 winter treatment with a spring clean up works to have a smaller fall mite load for healthy winter bees.

I just hope more people post results with the strategy they choose to use.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Some figures while true may not indicate the big picture effectiveness. The figure of a 4 day phoretic period (perhaps on average) could hide the implications of the ones capable of reentering cells immediately or within a few days thus being able to escape the effects of a 7 day interval OA treatment which may be starting to taper of after two or three days. Because mite fall is typically peak at about the third day could be construed that the treatment is only effective for one day but the mites take several days to die.

While an individual mites extreme length of life can extend to many months that does not indicate their average life span is anything near. The phoretic state is the time when mites are the most vulnerable. This in relation to speculating on the effectiveness of a brood break for a degree of mite control.

It would be interesting to see the results of a controlled study of a comparison between 3 x 7 day and a 5 or 6 repetitions on a 4 day interval.


----------



## Tom1617 (Oct 17, 2016)

crofter said:


> Some figures while true may not indicate the big picture effectiveness. The figure of a 4 day phoretic period (perhaps on average) could hide the implications of the ones capable of reentering cells immediately or within a few days thus being able to escape the effects of a 7 day interval OA treatment which may be starting to taper of after two or three days. Because mite fall is typically peak at about the third day could be construed that the treatment is only effective for one day but the mites take several days to die.
> 
> While an individual mites extreme length of life can extend to many months that does not indicate their average life span is anything near. The phoretic state is the time when mites are the most vulnerable. This in relation to speculating on the effectiveness of a brood break for a degree of mite control.
> 
> It would be interesting to see the results of a controlled study of a comparison between 3 x 7 day and a 5 or 6 repetitions on a 4 day interval.


+1... it seemed that maybe the mites could detect something detrimental in their environment and quickly reentered a cell... Total speculation...


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

crofter said:


> It would be interesting to see the results of a controlled study of a comparison between 3 x 7 day and a 5 or 6 repetitions on a 4 day interval.


I don't believe that the results of any ONE or more studies would do it. Too many variables (how many feral hives in the area, how many other beekeepers close by that have treated and untreated hives, time of year, amount of brood.........yada, yada, yada.......)

The only positive we can take for OAV is that it positively, absolutely works as a one time treatment during a broodless period. As to how many times to treat while there is brood, follow general guidelines and adjust to what works for you........


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

snl said:


> The only positive we can take for OAV is that it positively, absolutely works as a one time treatment during a broodless period. As to how many times to treat while there is brood, follow general guidelines and adjust to what works for you........


Excellent point. 

What works "for me" is treatments at 7 day intervals, 3 or 4 treatments in late summer to early fall. The most critical variable as far as I'm concerned is the "timing". I want to hit them with an OAV series during the summer dearth, when the amount of brood is low and the queen has slowed down laying. Phoretic mites are at their peak and there are a limited number of cells for them to occupy. 

If I wait too late to begin the treatments, and the queen has already picked up egg laying during the fall brood expansion, I've missed my window. In this case I would be better off using a Formic treatment and knocking down the capped mites as well. The timing has to be right for my OAV schedule to work effectively. 

I believe that's why some in the southern states might struggle with OAV efficacy. They might not ever have that "broodless" period in the winter months to clean up most of the mites and provide a fresh start.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Copied from linked article:
"A mite that is ready to reproduce will leave the adult bee on which it is feeding and crawl down the wall of the cell to the honey bee larva at the bottom of the cell....Only larvae ready to be capped are attractive to the mite".

This is not the first time I have seen information that larva give off some signal that results in them being capped.

Copied from linked article:
"After an egg is oviposited, an adult worker, drone, or queen bee emerges from the cell 21, 24, or 16 days later (aged respectively)". 

All larva are capped in day 8. This results in a capped period of 13, 16 and 8 days respectively.

Copied from linked article:
"Once worker bees have capped the cell, the larva consumes the remaining brood food, thus freeing the mite" time required for the larva to consume this food is not given. further comment in the article does say the mite attaches to the 
Larva" as apposed to attaching to a pupa. So this freeing of the mite and attachment would be between day 8 and day 17 for drones and day 13 for worker brood. 

That is a 9 or 5 day period. I would be interested in something a bit more definite as to when the mite is free.

Copied from linked article:
"The entire process from egg to adult mite takes six to seven days for both sexes of the mite."

This compares to a capped drone for a period of 16 days and 13 days for worker brood. If you reduce the capped period by the longest possible number of days the mite is trapped it becomes an 8 and 7 day period for the mite to develop. Actually giving a mite longer to develop on worker brood rather than drone.

Again indicating that period of time mite is trapped would be helpful if it where measured more accurately.

Finally this is also from the article:
Therefore, in the average temperate climate, mite populations can increase 12-fold in colonies having brood half of the year and 800-fold in colonies having brood year-round.

From 12 fold to 800 fold depending on local climate. that looks like quite a bit of difference to me. Now consider the struggle those of us with a 12 fold issue have with mites. 800 begins to look a bit hopeless.


----------



## AHudd (Mar 5, 2015)

Here in this part of Ar. we have had very short windows of no brood in the Winter. It seemed this year was only about three weeks. This choice they make to brood up may be because I make sure they have plenty of stores. I have one colony that is very reluctant to go into a super with undrawn foundation. Last year they started backfilling the brood nest during the Spring flow rather than draw wax. I guess with a backfilled brood nest there is no place for the mites to hide, but the downside is there was no surplus honey. I have drawn comb for them this year, so I'll see if they use it.
I started treating with OAV during the Summer of 2015 before the Winter buildup began. There was capped brood when I started but no eggs or larvae. I used the three treatment/seven day interval regimen. Then treated again in early Spring and late Summer of 2016. I have yet to treat this year because everything looks great, but I will treat again after the flow with the three treatment/seven day interval regimen because it seems to be working for me.

Alex


----------



## BadBeeKeeper (Jan 24, 2015)

Mike Gillmore said:


> I believe that's why some in the southern states might struggle with OAV efficacy. They might not ever have that "broodless" period in the winter months to clean up most of the mites and provide a fresh start.


And following on with that, it would stand to reason that more treatments at shorter intervals would be indicated in order to improve the results.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

BadBeeKeeper said:


> And following on with that, it would stand to reason that more treatments at shorter intervals would be indicated in order to improve the results.


That's a good point. But for me, the seemingly endless oav treatments I've been reading about would be a waste of time and effort when there are other treatment options available for this situation that are effective against all of the mites when brood is present, mites under the cappings as well. 

A one time shot of Formic would be a much better option for me to clean up the hive. There's no way I would be able to treat all of my hives with OAV every 3 days for weeks straight. It's not a realistic schedule I would be able to keep up with. If someone else wants to go that route, have at it. 

I've got my OAV treatment timing pretty much fine tuned for my needs and it's been working very well so far. A minimum number of treatments for satisfactory results.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Mike Gillmore said:


> I've got my OAV treatment timing pretty much fine tuned for my needs and it's been working very well so far. A minimum number of treatments for satisfactory results.


Mike - would you share your treatment schedule with us?


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

I think it's a fairly common schedule. 

I treat all of my colonies with 1 OAV treatment on a warm day (40+ deg) between Thanksgiving and Christmas when the colonies are nearly broodless. With mostly all of the mites phoretic at that time it really cleans up the mites very well. 

Springtime, when the overwintered colonies are brooding up quickly, they outpace the mite build up and I never need to worry about treatments in spring/early summer. 

Regionally, we typically get into a summer draught in August. The queens cut back dramatically on egg laying and the brood nest contracts quite a bit. Mite loads are usually very high by this time, at their peak. Since the broodnest has shrunk there are fewer opportunities for mites to enter the cells and many more are phoretic. The first half of August I'll pull all of my supers and prepare to begin a series of 3 or 4 OAV treatments a week apart. 

These treatments wrap up in the first half of September, when the Goldenrod starts blooming. Now the colonies have very low mite loads and the queen usually picks up egg laying. This gives the colonies enough time to raise healthy wintering bees. 

This isn't perfect, and doesn't eliminate all of the mites, but it's enough to allow the hives to overwinter and come out strong in the spring. I don't worry about winter losses due to mite issues any more. Now they are either queen failure or beekeeper error.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Another quick note FWIW.

Last year I had 18 hives in 4 different locations. I planned to reduce that down to just 2 sites this year so I wanted to test my OAV treatment effectiveness for my own reference. 

At 2 of the yards that I plan to eliminate there were 2 colonies set up at each location. They were well provisioned in the fall and had the same stock as my other yards. Last year I skipped the fall and winter treatments of OAV. All 4 hives died this winter due to mite pressure.

At my other locations where I treated with OAV on my regular schedule I've only had 1 loss so far. After inspection I found queen cells and suspect it was a late season queen supercedure failure. There may be 1 more that didn't make it, haven't looked into it yet. 

All the other hives are thriving. When we had the warm spell over the past couple of weeks the bees were out in force and bringing in boatloads of pollen. 

Not a scientific analysis, but it's confirmation to me that what I'm doing works. I don't have all the answers, but all I'm really worried about are the results.


----------



## Gumpy (Mar 30, 2016)

Mike Gillmore said:


> At 2 of the yards that I plan to eliminate there were 2 colonies set up at each location. They were well provisioned in the fall and had the same stock as my other yards. Last year I skipped the fall and winter treatments of OAV. All 4 hives died this winter due to mite pressure.


How do you know they died from mite pressure? What clues did they leave behind to allow you to make that conclusion? Or are you making that statement solely based on the fact that you did not treat these particular hives and they all died whereas the remainder which you did treat survived (mostly)?


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Gumpy said:


> How do you know they died from mite pressure? What clues did they leave behind to allow you to make that conclusion? Or are you making that statement solely based on the fact that you did not treat these particular hives and they all died whereas the remainder which you did treat survived (mostly)?


Mite frass in the cells, and depleted populations scattered around on the frames are the most obvious clues. Along with dead mites, of course. It's an evaluation based on past experience, not a guess, or a statement to back up my conclusions. Take it for what it's worth, or ignore it. I don't want to tell anyone else how to take of their bees. Simply sharing what I do for others to consider.


----------



## Gumpy (Mar 30, 2016)

Mike Gillmore said:


> Mite frass in the cells, and depleted populations scattered around on the frames are the most obvious clues. Along with dead mites, of course. It's an evaluation based on past experience, not a guess, or a statement to back up my conclusions. Take it for what it's worth, or ignore it. I don't want to tell anyone else how to take of their bees. Simply sharing what I do for others to consider.


I wasn't being critical. I was asking for the benefit of my own learning, and possibly for others. 

I was unable to detect frass in my combs. I'm not saying it wasn't there, but there was a lot of cappings and sugar crystals in the cells and I don't have the experience to distinguish frass yet, so I'm unable to conclude that mites were the cause or even contributed to the demise of my two colonies. Unfortunately, every time someone reports a hive died, the first question is always did they treat for mites and if they report they did not (and often even if they did), then the conclusion, often from 1000+ miles away and with no physical evidence, seems to always be mites.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Mike Gillmore said:


> I treat all of my colonies with 1 OAV treatment on a warm day . . . .


Thanks for the info, and working with the ebb and flow of brooding patterns when using OAV makes sense.

Lately, I have been doing a Apiguard treatment after honey harvest. Then, I do a single OAV when the hive is broodless in the late Fall.

This year, I am experimenting with doing an OAV in later Winter/early Spring, too. But, I am not seeing a lot of mite fall, so this treatment may not be necessary. I'll see how the hives build-up, though, before coming to any conclusions.



.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Gumpy said:


> Unfortunately, every time someone reports a hive died, the first question is always did they treat for mites and if they report they did not (and often even if they did), then the conclusion, often from 1000+ miles away and with no physical evidence, seems to always be mites.


That is because it is almost always true that if you don't treat for mites, the hive will die from mites. This is just an unfortunate consequence of how wide spread and how deadly mites are. This is especially true if the bees were not treatment free stock. And, treatments don't work if not done properly, and each treatment method can take a little bit of experience to get right.

Some TF'ers don't need to treat, so there are always exceptions, though.


----------



## dlbrightjr (Dec 8, 2015)

Gumpy said:


> I wasn't being critical. I was asking for the benefit of my own learning, and possibly for others.
> 
> I was unable to detect frass in my combs. I'm not saying it wasn't there, but there was a lot of cappings and sugar crystals in the cells and I don't have the experience to distinguish frass yet, so I'm unable to conclude that mites were the cause or even contributed to the demise of my two colonies. Unfortunately, every time someone reports a hive died, the first question is always did they treat for mites and if they report they did not (and often even if they did), then the conclusion, often from 1000+ miles away and with no physical evidence, seems to always be mites.


Often even if they do treat it is too late or inadequate. This seems to be a really tough concept for all of us inexperienced beekeepers. If you keep looking I think you will notice a trend. It appears that adequate treatment in whatever form reduces losses significantly. I wish you the best of luck


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Mites is very often my first though when I hear about winter colony loss and the person has not indicated that mites were at least _considered_ a cause. At least statistically it is good odds of being correct. Not definitively true of course.

If I hear hoofbeats on the roof on Christmas Eve I will put my money on reideer rather than zebras: when we were raising goats I would have put my money somewhere else!


----------



## texanbelchers (Aug 4, 2014)

Mike Gillmore said:


> ... or beekeeper error.


Say it isn't so! I was hoping to grow out of that some day. 

I haven't used any treatments other than OAV, but may need to introduce something. I don't have a broodless period, so a single treatment isn't possible. I did 3 rounds of 3 this last year, early spring, summer, and mid fall. I've only seen beneficial results. I need to do some washes to see where I am. I know I have 2 with symptoms of mite impact. I'll probably replace them with a new queens as soon as they are laying.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

I've been toying with the idea of using MAQS in early September to replace the series of treatments in the Fall, then using OAV only for the winter broodless treatment. Not sure I want to take the plunge yet. What concerns me the most is the risk of queen loss that late in the year.

If the colony is unable to raise a new queen that is well mated going into winter, they are toast. Even if they did raise a viable queen, that last month of no new brood while the queen is developing and mating could really impact the population of wintering bees.

Right now I'm stuck in the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mode.


----------



## dlbrightjr (Dec 8, 2015)

Mike Gillmore said:


> I've been toying with the idea of using MAQS in early September to replace the series of treatments in the Fall, then using OAV only for the winter broodless treatment. Not sure I want to take the plunge yet. What concerns me the most is the risk of queen loss that late in the year.
> 
> If the colony is unable to raise a new queen that is well mated going into winter, they are toast. Even if they did raise a viable queen, that last month of no new brood while the queen is developing and mating could really impact the population of wintering bees.
> 
> Right now I'm stuck in the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mode.


I've been thinking about doing it the way you described earlier or MAQS in August or early September. I'm also seriously considering trying a requeen on everything early in July with a brood break. This could be done with or without one dose of OAV just as the new queen begins to lay in a broodless period. I understand there is not a lot of forage here after July.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Mike Gillmore said:


> I've been toying with the idea of using MAQS in early September to replace the series of treatments in the Fall, then using OAV only for the winter broodless treatment. Not sure I want to take the plunge yet. What concerns me the most is the risk of queen loss that late in the year.


That mirrors my thoughts, too. Hence, the Apiguard treatment after I pull honey supers in late August. MAQS would possibly be a little better than Apiguard, but I am worried about queen loss with no safety net.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

dlbrightjr said:


> Often even if they do treat it is too late or inadequate.


This is a great point. 

There are many beekeepers in this area who treat, but don't understand why they experience unacceptable losses every year. Again it goes back to the importance of regional timing. In many cases they are the beekeepers who wait and pull supers once a year, late September after the goldenrod flow. Then they treat the hives after the supers are off.

It's too late at that point. The hives should have been treated a month or more earlier when the mite load was peaking, but the damage has been done and there is not enough time left after treatment for the population to build back up with healthy bees before winter. Mite damaged bees have a very difficult time over wintering.


----------



## BadBeeKeeper (Jan 24, 2015)

Mike Gillmore said:


> I've been toying with the idea of using MAQS in early September to replace the series of treatments in the Fall, then using OAV only for the winter broodless treatment. Not sure I want to take the plunge yet. What concerns me the most is the risk of queen loss that late in the year.


OK. I know I've said this before, a number of times, but I'm going to give it another shot. When used CORRECTLY, MAQS _does not_ cause queen or excessive brood loss (with one exception). I have never, repeat NEVER experienced this. If you don't want to believe *me*, then believe Randy Oliver- he ran a test on it, which is referenced in NOD Global's FAQ.

The key word here, is *CORRECTLY*.

There are a number of conditions which must be observed with stringency. Firstly, I note that Brushy Mountain's blurb on MAQS is that it can be used up to 92*F. This is wrong, do not do it. If there is a chance that your temperatures ambient will exceed 85* during the treatment period, do not use the product, wait for a better window, or treat earlier (kicking mite butt early is always better than trying to do it later). Lower temperatures (above 50*F) are better. The acid becomes more volatile at higher temperatures, lower temps allow for a more controlled release. Shoot for a middle ground to obtain best results.

Second, make sure that you put an extra medium super or brood box, with frames (per NOD Global), on the stack for _at least_ the first three days of treatment. (I generally put empty boxes on, without frames, and have experienced no adverse results. Frames may reduce bearding but I have not tested this.)

Third, close up the screened bottom with a mite check board, or use a solid bottom board, _*but make sure that the bottom entrance is open for the full width of the bottom board*_, do not use any entrance reducer at all. The action of the bees fanning at the entrance circulates the air within the hive, increasing the efficacy of the treatment. Use of an open screened bottom impedes the efforts of the bees to circulate air and reduces the efficacy of the treatment. The acid must be circulated throughout the hive in order to remain at a relatively constant level to penetrate all of the brood cells for an effective kill of mites in capped cells. Leaving a screened bottom open reduces the acid levels below optimum. Reducing the entrance increases the acid level above optimum and may cause adverse effects.

The exception I mentioned above, is related to high mite/virus levels. If you are attempting to treat with MAQS when your mite and virus levels are already high, and your bees are already sick, you may experience increased brood loss. Your options are to accept the losses (in which case they *should* rebound fairly rapidly), or treat with a different product over a somewhat extended period of time in order to allow for a gradual improvement. Failing to treat at all will most likely result in a worse outcome.

There are a number of reviews/reports that indicate the user experienced adverse results (queen, excessive brood loss), but I would be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that those users were some combination of already past critical mite/virus levels, and/or failed to follow the guidelines correctly. Judging from a number of posts on this board, I am reasonably certain that more than a few folks are less than diligent in their understanding/observance of proper application of treatment methods, and some are completely lacking in any notion of proper science, which is critical to appropriate to appropriate and effective use of products such as this.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

BadBeeKeeper said:


> OK. I know I've said this before, a number of times, but I'm going to give it another shot. When used CORRECTLY, MAQS _does not_ cause queen or excessive brood loss (with one exception). I have never, repeat NEVER experienced this. If you don't want to believe *me*, then believe Randy Oliver- he ran a test on it, which is referenced in NOD Global's FAQ.
> 
> The key word here, is *CORRECTLY*.


I've said it before but I'll say it again: MAQS can be hard on bees.
I use MAQS. Following the directions to a T, on a hive that does not appear to be suffering from high virus loads can still cause brood and queen loss.
Not mentioned by you nor in the instructions is the scenario of high humidity and still air, although the temperature is well within range. I hesitate to call it 'heat index' but the combination of temp and humidity- real feel is what the TV weather people call it. 
Temps 85* with 98% humidity and still air makes MAQS very hard on bees.

Maybe there is another exception people should be aware of.


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

I started out using FA for mites and although it does work there are too many variables such as temperature and cluster size which in the end caused the treatments to be inconsistent. Since then it has been OAV, and OAV kills phoretic mites every time it is tried. The only downside to the colony was a fried bee now and again using the wand type of vaporizer, and sometimes not knowing whether that fried bee was the queen or not. The time taken to do the job was a bit of a problem but rather spend a little time than lose bees. Since then with the new types of vaporizer where the vapor is introduced from the outside the time taken has more than halved and there is no longer the danger of frying the queen it is quite easy to vaporize often. I have watched my observation hive being treated with OAV and the disruption is minimal no more than 5 minutes and the bees are back to business as usual. So what do we glean from this " OAV kills phoretic mites " so treat often and do mite counts. If mite counts are high continue treating. After harvest in 2014 I ended up treating each hive 8 times before I was happy with my counts so its either that, treat with something else like what do you trust or lose your bees. The choice is yours.
Johno


----------

