# End of the varroa rainbow?



## TRC (Nov 22, 2005)

Is this fungus a flash in the pan, or the real thing?
http://beesource.com/news/article/fungus.htm 

This could be great if it kills all the mites. Otherwise it's just a way to breed fungus resistant mites. Just my opinion.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

I asked the same question some months ago and got no responses:

http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000470#000000

I took the lack of responses to be a resounding "huh?". I haven't heard anything in the rumor mill either. I wouldn't say it's a dead end, but I would have expected to hear something if there was ongoing research in this direction. Maybe it's just stuck in red tape or something.

As much as I hate varroa mites, I've come to respect them. I tend to distrust short-sighted traditional scientific approaches to dealing with problems- they often have side effects or long term ramifications they (doh!) just didn't see coming. I'm not holding my breath on this one.


----------



## Morris (Oct 12, 2004)

It does work. See the published field trials done by Lambert Kanga, Jones, and James.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

The problem is that researchers can't even get funding to do basic public health research, yet alone study a fungus. If any large commercial beeks are out there, start doing your own trials because this tool is going to be a long time in the making.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

It is not available, being manufactured or approved and there does not appear to be a timeline when any of those things might happen.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

This subject has just surfaced on BEE-L. We'll see where it goes.

Administrative wheels grind slowly....

George-


----------



## Morris (Oct 12, 2004)

George,
Tried to find the information on this fungus on BEE-L without success. I registered for this site as suggested. Any tips on accesing the discussion group?


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Early reports have not been good. The field trials are the problem I have been told.

No problems with killing bee or problems we normally hear of but actual control of varroa problems.

My information comes from a person close to the source. I posted on the subject once before on beesource and *said* my source was a rumor and a lecture came from the heckler section about rumors.

Maybe the best information Morris you will get might be my rumor?

The thing which is a truth about researchers:

When progress is positive they pat theirselves on the back and scream success. When progress is problematic all you get is silence (like NOW!)

I can give several examples of bee lab projects which have been on a back burner for years which were front and center at the start.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Tried to find the information on this fungus on BEE-L without success.

Well, the BEE-L moderators in their infinite wisdom decided NOT to clear my 2 posts with links to this (beesource) and the USDA's ARS site when this matter came up. So be it.

Maybe it was an oversight, maybe not. I don't care. I've about had it with BEE-L anyways- I get too much email as it is and I've got little interest in reading, let alone participating in such an openly hostile group of skeptical know-it-alls. Granted, not everyone on BEE-L is a "skeptical know-it-all" and there is often useful information and discussion there. I don't mind some healthy skepticism, it generates discussion (as evidenced on this site, and other lists) which is generally a good thing. However, when it deteriorates into categorically debunking everything out of hand, or worse, agenda-based self-serving censorship because it just doesn't meet the lofty standards of "true science", I get a sour taste in my mouth. Maybe I'll remain on the list. It's nice sometimes to have something to complain about









Ho hum..

>Any tips on accesing the discussion group?

Which group- BEE-L? You can browse/search the list archives at this url:

http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm

George-


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> ...openly hostile group of skeptical know-it-alls....


There arent any on these forums??!!  

This can be bookmarked and will take anyone (subscriber or not) directly to the Bee-L archives:

http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/archives/bee-l.html 

It is possible to set your preferences to receive no email. Scroll down to the Miscellaneous section and set your preferences to Mail delivery disabled temporarily: 

http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=bee-l&A=1

[ November 25, 2005, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> There aren’t any on these forums??!!


What? Openly hostile know-it-alls? Here? Hardly! None of the know-it-alls here are openly hostile









And maybe I was a bit too hard on BEE-L... Nah


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

We all have had troubles getting posts approved on BEE-L. If two of your posts did not get approved then ALL the moderators thought the post lacked merit. Takes only one to get approval.

Instead of going in a corner "licking your wounds" you could have tried to figure out what the moderators *all* saw as lacking in your posts.

Beesource is like a football game without a ref. or a boxing match without a ref. I do post on occasion to help the many serious beekeepers on beesource.

I do enjoy reading some of the posts on beesource (George F. included) others I pass over. Many have said they do the same on BEE-L.

Also George the above is an example of a post which would be turned down on BEE-L because of the "licking your wounds". If I would remove and resubmit the post would go through. 

I am not a moderator on BEE-L. I have had plenty of posts rejected.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> Instead of going in a corner "licking your wounds" you could have tried to figure out what the moderators *all* saw as lacking in your posts.


Heh. I was hardly wounded but I guess I was a bit pissy about it. I'll get over it, and I appreciate the advice of a veteran BEE-L poster









In fact, I've never really had a problem or an issue with the moderators there. I've had posts turned down on BEE-L before, for a variety of reasons, usually more or less legitimate. Once when I posted a busted URL- I was asked to resubmit it when I got my URL right- which I did









In this case, someone else subsequently posted the same URL I did, the next day so it didn't seem worthwile pursuing. Their post consisted of one sentence and the url. My post had consisted of one sentence and the url. My sentence suggested the url might be relevant to the discussion. The other one didn't introduce that "whiff of uncertainty"









I don't post to BEE-L very often and when I do I try to be "spot on" as our british companions would say. Here on Beesource, posting is sort of like talking at my local beekeeper's association meeting. On BEE-L, the atmosphere is a bit more rarified- it's more like getting up in front of a panel of judges and being oh-so-nervous that you'll say the wrong thing. I know that doesn't bother some people









I won't bail on BEE-L, it's too entertaining, and informative, usually. I'll even try to slip in something useful (and defensible, and not speculative) once in a while!



> I am not a moderator on BEE-L. I have had plenty of posts rejected.


Heheh... I bet you have! FWIW, I've always enjoyed those of your posts that made it through









George-


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

George,
I have had some private emails from Aaron which made my ears burn. I was even put in "no Post" (kind of like time out for kids)once.

One moderator quit and started his own beekeeping discussion site (partly because of the allowing of one of my posts to slip by concerning a researcher).

The site he set up is huge now and unmoderated! I was on a loose leash when Barry Birkey was moderator on BEE-L!


Keep on posting on BEE-L! 

Aaron sent me an email a couple months ago saying four people had dropped from the list after a round of heated discussions. Aaron wants every person he can on BEE-L. He does have a big heart and the best interests of beekeeping. I do present a challenge for Aaron but I can go on line and create interest in beekeeping. 

Your friend,
Bob Harrison


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> I was even put in "no Post" (kind of like time out for kids)once.


Hehe.. made you go sit in the corner eh? Hehe..

I've had a couple of private exchanges with Aaron. He's a reasonable man. I liken his job as moderator of BEE-L to "herding cats".



> Keep on posting on BEE-L!


Well... OK









George-


----------



## GaSteve (Apr 28, 2004)

At the last GA Beekeepers Assn. meeting, Dr. Kanga briefed the status of research his group is doing on the fungus at Florida A&M. My notes are sketchy, but the results seem to be very encouraging. At first they tried several types of fungus in both dust and strip form. Higher concentrations of some varieties in dust form did raise bee mortality a little. The fungus does not kill the mite immediately. It takes several days to a week. He did claim 100% mite mortality in some tests. He also indicated that much more work is needed.

BTW, apparantly resistance is not an issue with the fungus. Apparently it's analagous to why humans can't become immune to lion attacks.

When I get my email working, I will email him to see if he can send (or post on the web) a copy of the power point presentation he gave.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

<--Aaron sent me an email a couple months ago saying four people had dropped from the list after a round of heated discussions. Aaron wants every person he can on BEE-L.-->

Yea, I got a similar email also. Having experience as a moderator on several lists, you begin to see that list subscriptions fluctuate all the time, people subscribe and unsubscribe for many reasons. 4 people unsubscribing is certainly well within normal subscriber attrition rates. But people do like to make a statement and will pin reasons or blame persons for there decision rather than admitting that they just dont have the time to read the posts or other personal hang-ups etc. If you dont like a thread, you can delete it. IMO, a discussion list that does not get into the occasional heated debate would be rather boring, if we all had the same views, beekeeping methodry, what would there be to discuss? I highly value the stuff Bob writes on Bee-L, and we do occasionally disagree, but I think its no big deal. But whats wonderful about talking with Bob is that he seems to not hold a grudge and will continue on in future productive discussions without worrying about settling scores etc.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> ...a discussion list that does not get into the occasional heated debate would be rather boring...


heated 'debates' often end up as not much more than simple arguing, and a contest as to who is gong to have the last word. they, too, get boring rather quickly. some refer to them as 'pedantic drivel'. 

still, some heated debates can be entertaining and even informative. i guess it boils down to the people who are 'debating' ought to do a bit of honest soul-searching each time they click on reply in their 'debates'


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

I agree with you Dick. If debates are backed up with supporting documentation, this is good and I enjoy this type of talk as it can be productive. But too often it degrades into personal attacks which is not productive.

Many times will let others have the last word just so the thread will finally die, and those with the big mouths can have the last word and the last one standing 'win' so the speak. 

But I really think many lurkers see thru this and make up their own minds, although do not speak up as they probably have seen from the history of some of these debates it is better to stay out of them.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> ...If debates are backed up with supporting documentation, this is good ....


or they can be one-sided as there is often supporting documentation for each side of the 'debate' and rarely do those who are 'debating' offer any documentation from the other side, but this is off-topic anyway, so i'll bow out and let you have the last word joe.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

"or they can be one-sided as there is often supporting documentation for each side of the 'debate' "

This is the rule rather than the exception in scientific debates. With beekeeping, much more than science influences outcomes. Debates on the listserve really teach me and are usually lively, but probably can't establish anything resembling universal truth.


Wow...talk about off topic : )


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

Has any one tried Green Mussel or Tick X formulations of the fungus. As near as I have been able to determine these formulations are available for the control of ticks and locusts. They may or may not have ill affects on bees. I had an opportunity to speak with Dr Kanga a few weeks ago and it seemed that the lab grown fungus when taken directly to the test yards worked great. The problems arose when the fungus was grown at some biotech corporation and then field tested in other states. There seemed to be more questions than answers overall. It was hinted that some stabilization factor for shipping and storing the product needs to be developed. My question is what are these other producers of fungus using to stabilize their product for transport and application? Has anybody tested these formulations for apicultural applications? I would guess there are possibly some proprietary interests slowing things down.
JBJ


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Let me know when you guys are through with this thread. That way I can make the last comment.  

I've never been on another beesite (forum based) other than perhaps one popping up when I was randomly doing some searches. But I kinda thought about the "openly hostile group of skeptical know it alls" comment. I wondered where some of these types went when Barry closed down "tailgater". Haven't seen much of a few "un-named" posters.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

BjornBee . . .

Have you been causing trouble, AGAIN?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

"again" indicates that it stopped and then started at some point. I would rather think it never stopped. Someone once mentioned something about being "consistant".


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Has any one tried Green Mussel or Tick X formulations of the fungus. As near as I have been able to determine these formulations are available for the control of ticks and locusts. 

I found the termite one supposedly for sale and even ordered some and was informed it was not longer being produced. Where would one find the "Green Mussel" or "Tick X" forumalations?


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

I believe the Green Muscle formulation is produced in South Africa and the Tick X is produced somewhare in the Eastern United states. A friend passed this onfo to me after gleaning it off the web. I will research it some more.
JBJ


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

They've been tried.

Neither one works well with varroa, and they both
tend to cause high bee fatalities.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

I'm *almost* sorry I made that "openly hostile group of skeptical know-it-alls" comment. I don't generally like generalities







nor do I routinely pass judgement on an entire group because of the proclivities of a few individuals. I certainly don't like it when that happens to me. I do enjoy reading the list, there are a lot of very knowledgeable and experienced beekeepers there and they discuss "ordinary" beekeeping "stuff" just like we do here. Still, there's a character to BEE-L that is all it's own and which is distinctly different from that of the general discourse on this site. A lot that difference is the result of the format of the list. A lot is the result of the makeup and background of the subscribers. Regardless of whether you like the flavor of BEE-L or not, it performs a valuable service and is here to stay. Long live diversity!

But WE have graphic smilies  

George-


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

Sorry that I'm posting an off topic, meaning not related to varroa, but the thread seems to have made a divergent split to include a discussion on Bee-L. Anyway, I just read a page regarding "misconceptions" regarding Bee-L. On it, it was explained that Bee-L is not a "free speach" website. While, I'm sure that helps to keep some level of community report through moderating, it also means one has to trust that the moderating won't mean biasing the discussions. Is that possible? I don't know. I don't know the moderators. I have heard it said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I'm not making any accusations; I've never visited Bee-L. but those of you who have experiences there, can I trust it to be an "open" list in regard to no biasing, or no? I hear it mentioned often. I like reading where there are open minds and help from humble,unpretentious people. However, it is my experience with people that those who are "know it alls" aren't able to, as stated before, look for or see weaknesses within themselves or their views. That's little help to me.

(ADDED THROUGH EDIT) You know, I'm ok with that I'm probably one of those whose posts are passed over occassionally. But I probably should go on record, considering my above statements, as saying that I am a scientist. And in my field, we use statistics to express the strength and weaknesses of our research. For instance, a research report would include the percentage of occurance of an event. It is that percentage of results that is considered true (statistically). Any reader would then understand the percent of error, as well as the percent falibility, of the result. So we accept our weaknesses, the weaknesses in our claims, and the weaknesses in our research. So that's why I'm prone to skepticism when someone can't recongize the same weaknesses in their arguements. And if they can't recognize them, then I have to do my own digging to discover them... more work for me. So I select those who make it easier for me by being upfront about it all when I can.

Waya

Oh, yeah, and as for "openly hostile group of skeptical know-it-alls....," I would say, occassionally hostile, often skeptical, certainly know it alls, but never ever ever "open" about being so. LOL

[ December 05, 2005, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: wayacoyote ]


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

[Still, there's a character to BEE-L that is all it's own and which is distinctly different from that of the general discourse on this site. A lot that difference is the result of the format of the list]

Like we are the children of a lesser god, they are slumin when they post here? Like we're the poor cousins?
The truth is a painful thing!!


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> The fungus does not kill the mite immediately. 
> It takes several days to a week. He did claim 
> 100% mite mortality in some tests. He also 
> indicated that much more work is needed.

From this, one can conclude that despite
several years and multiple attempts, neither
Kanga nor Rosalind James can reproduce their
results as published in their early paper, and
trumpeted at the (2004?) AHPA meeting.

Given the "textbook perfect" nature of the results
presented in their original paper, I'd guess
that it will be more and more difficult to get
any updates on this "miracle cure".


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I just read a page regarding "misconceptions" regarding Bee-L.

Yes Waya, I read that every once in a while when I go to the BEE-L archive to search, just to remind myself what it's all about. I got no problem with their stated mandate, or the fact that it's moderated. I can just imagine what it would be like if it WASN'T moderated









What is also worth reading is "What exactly is BEE-L?" from which I quote the initial paragraph:



> BEE-L is the oldest Internet mailing list for discussing bees and beekeeping. It was originally started as a list for international communication between bee researchers at universities and government institutions. Over the years, it has evolved more to the discussion of practical beekeeping, but still retains some of its original character.


That pretty much says it all IMHO. The discussion may include practical beekeeping, but the rarified atmosphere of academia is still quite evident. Sometimes it's hard to catch a breath in there









>Like we're the poor cousins? The truth is a painful thing!!

Ain't it though









George-


----------



## Morris (Oct 12, 2004)

GaSteve, Have you made any progress in receiving a copy of the Kanga power point presentation?


----------



## GaSteve (Apr 28, 2004)

I have not heard anything yet, but it's only been a couple days. It took me a while to finally get my email working again.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

Jim, was it the fungal strain that was responsible for the bee fatalities or something in the formulation such as a carrier or stabilizing agent? I have heard rumors of successful mycosis of Varroa in Canada, can anyone corroborate this?
JBJ


----------

