# "IPM" definitions and explanations



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Varroa Mgt. IPM might include

spring treatment with apistan
summer : Screened Bottom Board
Powdered sugar dusting
Smoking with tabacco added to smoker fuel
late Summer: Formic Acid
Fall : fogging with FGMO/Thymol 

You could substitute/rotate virtually any combination of treatements or control methods. I look at the goal as being rotating treatements to give a reasonable control without encouraging resistance.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

IPM is a rational decision making process ideally based on methodically collected information and rationally selected interventionl points. The actual interventions vary greatly, and with good reason. Lowering resistance, improving yeilds and reducing environmental damage and decreasing pesticide costs are commonly cited goals of IPM programs. I would not recommend IPM programs created by pesticide companies as there is an inherent bias towards excessive treatment or the use of non-biologic control methods.


----------



## HoneyBeeGood (Mar 20, 2005)

I agree with Aspera's definition, and I would like to emphasise the importance of the methodical collection of information. IPM means more than the use of several different varroacides and biotechnical methods. It includes estimation of mite load through sampling.

We typically monitor natural mite mortlity two or three periods per year. We also examine drone pupae and estimate mite load from them.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> IPM means more than the use of several different varroacides and biotechnical methods. -HoneyBeeGood


While you might like that concept, by definition IPM does NOT mean more than the use of several different acaricides or biotechnical methods. Technically, alternating between Apistan and CheckMite+ is a simple form of IPM.

Again, "IPM" is the abbreviation for "Integrated Pest Management." 

Unfortunately, IPM includes nothing by definition about estimations of populations. Economic thresholds and treatment thresholds and such DO require sampling to estimate pest populations.

So, having said all that, two quick examples:

1) Using screened bottom boards (SBB), although often cited as "IPM," is not IPM. Alone, SBB have not been "integrated" with any other methods.

2) Using SBB and treating with Apistan once a year is one form of IPM. Two different treatments have been integrated -- that is, they complement one another, and are distinct treatments.

Keep in mind that IPM may or may not be successful. Just because a strategy qualifies as "IPM" does not mean that it will be economical, or effective.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I do believe it is imperative to have a good hive monitoring system in place to make use of the IPM system that is implemented. Treatments vary with the conditions involved, a good IPM system has to be able to bend and flex with the changing circumstances to make best effect of the treatment applied. 

I think monitoring is beekeepers biggest down fall. So easy to treat everything, regardless of cost or effectiveness, and no consideration of consequence. If we can focus the hard treatments at times when we need them the most, to yards that need them the most, then the life of those reliable methods will be extended. Meanwhile we can be using alternative treatments to help buy time. And there is lots out there, that have been proven.

Most importantly, to have the best IPM system implemented into your operation, I believe an open mind is probably your best weapon.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

monitoring mites,

it too requires more than just one approach. Too many beekeeper just count the mite fall, during treatment and naturally.
That is real important, especially to help determine if the treatment is working. But it is only relevant if you know what your mite infestation is to start with. 
Beekeepers have to mite wash, randomly throughout the yards, to get a good feel on the mite levels in the hives first. Then based on that information, youmake the treatment decisions.
Then is becomes important to watch the mite falls, to determine the treatments effectiveness. 

To just count falling mites faces you with too many variables on how the hive is actually handling the mites.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Kieck writes 'by definition IPM does NOT mean more than the use of several different acaricides or biotechnical methods.'

Where did you get your definition?


----------



## kensfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Kieck said:


> 1) Using screened bottom boards (SBB), although often cited as "IPM," is not IPM. Alone, SBB have not been "integrated" with any other methods.



Does integrated mean.. w/ another pest management.. or integrated w/ the act of bee keeping?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

The term "IPM" is misused quite a bit, but what it really means is
something that I have explained in many presentations to beekeeper
groups.

IPM is not about "softer" treatments.
IPM is not about "passive" disease and pest control.
IPM is not something you can buy.
IPM is not a feature of a product or a thing.

IPM is simply the practice of monitoring pests and diseases, and
making treatment decisions based upon that monitoring.

As I often say "*one cannot control that which one does not measure*".
That's the whole point behind IPM.

I joke that it would be perfectly reasonable to have an IPM program
where one used flamethrowers to control SHB, and short-range tacical
nuclear warheads to control varroa, as long as one had a monitoring
program to decide when and where to deploy such "treatments".

Some of the most nasty pesticides known to man are used in IPM
programs, and everyone admits that what is being done is valid "IPM".


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I got my definition from Drs. Perry Adkisson and Ray F. Smith, who coined the term. They defined the concept and created the term to describe the concept.

"Integrated Pest Management (IPM): The integration of two or more complimentary tactics to maintain a pest population below an economic injury level, in accordance with legal, environmental and economic considerations; tactics may or may not be multidisciplinary."

"Integrated" means integrated with another methods of pest management.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I would put as much weigh on treatment decissions and treatment options as monitoring.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Kieck writes 'IPM includes nothing by definition about estimations of populations.'

Kieck writes 'by definition IPM does NOT mean more than the use of several different acaricides or biotechnical methods.'

Kieck writes 'to maintain a pest population below an economic injury level'

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but isn't there a bit of contradiction here? To maintain a pest population below an economic injury level, to me, clearly implies some mechanism to estimate that pest's population. This is, in my opinion, a bit more sophisticated than only the use of different acaricides or biotechnical methods.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>clearly implies some mechanism to estimate that pest's population. This is, in my opinion, a bit more sophisticated than only the use of different acaricides or biotechnical methods.

The only way you can measure pest population is by measuring the population of the pest.
Why are we looking at IPM as being weighted on measurement, or weighted on treatment. You need to implement both to make your IPM system to work.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Ian writes 'Why are we looking at IPM as being weighted on measurement, or weighted on treatment. You need to implement both to make your IPM system to work.'

That's my point. I was responding to Kieck, who initiated this thread, and his posted definitions for IPM. It appeared to me that he was stating that IPM referred ONLY to the rotation of different pesticides and does not include any estimation of populations. I, on the other hand, believe that IPM is a more sophisticated process whereby one must estimate (or count) the pest population to determine if treatment is even required. In addition it is a process that includes using natural control methods when available and using a rotation of pesticides if chemical treatments are necessary. I have attended a number of pesticide classes for a variety of agricultural areas, including beekeeping, and have always heard that IPM was the integration of a variety of control techniques and it invariably included some type of pest scouting or measuring.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but isn't there a bit of contradiction here?
> To maintain a pest population below an economic injury level, to me, clearly
> implies some mechanism to estimate that pest's population. This is, in my
> opinion, a bit more sophisticated than only the use of different acaricides
> or biotechnical methods.

The estimate of the pest population can be made with passive
sticky boards, following the Penn State guidelines, meaning leave
the board in for 3 days, and divide the count by 3 so that one's
count is not skewed by a single day's weather and conditions.

As it turns out, what is important with varroa is *NOT *the absolute
number of varroa in the hive, but instead, the rate of population
*growth*. (_This is the *slope* of the curve!_)

When the count of varroa that drop onto the sticky board under
"normal" conditions (no miticides in use) starts to ramp up, the 
slope of the curve of your graph (and you are graphing your counts,
of course, as you are serious about IPM), you then know that things
are about to get out of hand. The good news is that you have lots
of options these days.

Given that different hives have different bee populations, the classical
"pest to plant" ratio used in most of agriculture does not apply well
to beekeeping, so the only answer is to get into the habit of taking 
regular drop counts from at least a few "sentinel hives", one per yard
will do.

The concept of a "threshold" being batted about by many is a dangerous
approach, in that it presumes that one can take action based only
upon a single count of varroa, and only a rough idea of the number of
bees in the colony. This sort of approach will mislead the beekeeper,
and is clearly not a very good implementation of "IPM".

I've said it before, and I'll say it yet again:

_One cannot control that which one does not measure!

_In a nutshell, the line above is the entire idea behind IPM.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I agree Beemandan.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but isn't there a bit of contradiction here? To maintain a pest population below an economic injury level, to me, clearly implies some mechanism to estimate that pest's population. -beemandan


At first glance, the statements do seem to be contradictory. But think about it like this:

You treat your hive with two or more integrated methods. You never count mites, simply treating regardless. Because of or despite your efforts, the Varroa population is zero or very, very close to zero. Are you using IPM?

Of course, you could then question whether or not any treatment is necessary -- but that's a completely different issue.



> I was responding to Kieck, who initiated this thread, and his posted definitions for IPM. It appeared to me that he was stating that IPM referred ONLY to the rotation of different pesticides and does not include any estimation of populations. -beemandan


No, I don't believe I ever stated that IPM refers ONLY to rotating different pesticides. What I attempted to point out is that rotating two pesticides is a simple form of IPM (because it's "integrated"), while only using screened bottom boards is not (because one method alone cannot be "integrated").

Using screened bottom boards (SBB) and Apistan is also IPM.

Breaking the brood cycle and drone trapping and using SBB are IPM.

Joel's example (the second post in this thread) is IPM.

Using Apistan alone is not IPM.

Using oxalic acid is not IPM.

Using SBB is not IPM.

But, using oxalic acid and SBB is IPM.

See how it works?



> Why are we looking at IPM as being weighted on measurement, or weighted on treatment. You need to implement both to make your IPM system to work. -Ian


Right. For IPM to be successful, especially economically, monitoring pest populations is important. That gets back to the economic considerations as part of IPM.

However, I have seen examples where producers (not necessarily beekeepers) control pest populations without measuring. Think of all the RoundUp Ready crops that are sprayed without measuring weed populations -- the pests are kept in control without any measuring.

Of course, some of those fields may not need to be sprayed from an economic standpoint, but that's a different matter.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>RoundUp Ready crops that are sprayed without measuring weed populations -- the pests are kept in control without any measuring.


Well, I think it has more to do with the control of weeds in the crop rotation, than simply just targeting the weed of that season.
This technology has allowed us to farm the land, control the annual AND perennials which pose current and long term problem. By controlling the perennials one year in three, with this technology, even on weeds below threshold of that year, your maintaining that controlled perennial weed infestation for the next two years as well.
RR technology has provided us the the useful tools to finally control perennials in our cropping ROTATION. And I argue to this day, we use less pesticides because of it.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm not arguing against using RR technology, just that I doubt most if any farmers monitor weed populations before applying RoundUp.

That seems to be "control without measuring" to me.

Are threshold populations for most weeds even known?

And, of course, combining RoundUp applications and crop rotation is IPM.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>When the count of varroa that drop onto the sticky board under
"normal" conditions (no miticides in use) starts to ramp up, the 
slope of the curve of your graph (and you are graphing your counts,
of course, as you are serious about IPM), 

I beleive your pounding the basics, fundimentals of IPM to us, as before. And I agree.
But I also believe to make it practical to modern day beekeeping needs, you have to broaden the scope and look at IPM as how it can be used within a commercial opperation and how to influence their practices. Otherwise IPM will never be adopted by the common beekeeper.

In a perfect world, hive by hive monitoring/management would be the ultimate goal. But for the commercial beekeeping world, it has to extend to yard by yard monitoring/management. That being a tough sell to beekeepers who want an operation based model.

I beleive beekeepers are starting to change thier additudes about hive management and are looking for alternate options.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> But I also believe to make it practical to modern day beekeeping needs, 
> you have to broaden the scope and look at IPM as how it can be used
> within a commercial opperation and how to influence their practices.

What's so hard about monitoring one sentinel hive per yard?
This has been "suggested" for over a decade, so its not like
anyone can claim that IPM can't "scale" to commercial sized
operations.

> In a perfect world, hive by hive monitoring/management would be the
> ultimate goal. 

I don't know *anyone* who thinks that this is even a good idea!
There is such a thing as "too much data", ya know.

> But for the commercial beekeeping world, it has to extend to yard by 
> yard monitoring/management. 

Like I've said many times before - _*"one sentinel hive per yard...".
*_If anyone can't handle that, they should sell out now while they still 
have an operation to sell.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

The most difficult transition to sideliner was accepting the fact I would have to make one sentinel my management technique in order to be able to multiply my efforts. I found some problems with the technique in that even though we focus on equalizing our hives many hives in a yard of 25 or 30 can have completely different problems impacting their mite thresholds. These might be related to hygenic behavior, specifics about differences in queen genetics, quantity of drone comb, mangement and manipulations (comb honey vs extracted, Pollen trapping vs not ect.) I find myself walking into a yard of 25 hives, checking the type of activity and signs at the entrance, picking out the A-typical hive for that yard and sometimes tearing down that one as well as anything which shows a cause for strong concern. Other factors such as entrance location (north facing hive vs south facing hive), prolificty (is that a word) of a queen, chalk brood, queen loss and others still render each hive unique despite my best efforts. This makes one sentinel that with a gestalt cursory review of the yard my methodoly.

I think most would still be suprised at how many hives get torn down even in a commerical operation. I do take the attitude that if one hive in a yard has problem they all have (or will have) the problem.

My goal in varroa IPM is to use ongoing controls that allow me to not be doing scheduled mite counts but to be in constant control. I have found if I can impact the mites during the summer bi-weekely, without invading the hive, I get an exceptional level of control. I keep all my mite tools in my mental toolbox such as tobacco, formic acid (also helps with trach. mites), Apistan, FGMO/Thymol, eventually powdered sugar and maybe OA, or apilife Var, and use them at the height of their effectiveness on a schedule more related to interval than pest population. I do spot checks with sticky boards and uncapping drone cells throughout the seaon just to make certain I'm on top of problems. 

So far it has worked well, this post has given me more fodder for doing a better job.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>I doubt most if any farmers monitor weed populations before applying RoundUp.


Thats the whole idea of RR technology. It takes everything, except the crop you grow. It targets the annuals AND perennials. 
The crop will have weed preasures in it, so it takes that weed preasure, and the rest of the weeds also, giving a clean crop, a situation that is noticable subsequent years. IT is key in a rotation with growing crops that dont have control options for much what roundup will take.

and there is very little chemical applied, compaired to conventional options mixes.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Jim,

So your measuring, to monitor mite pops, over the whole operation, and start treating when all you hive start dropping more mites. Your still working on threshold to determine treatment.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Am I alone in the mindset that getting to the threshold is problematic in itself, espeically in a commercial operation where the best laid plans are often led astray by an unexpected truck repair or flash fire in the wax melter?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>I do take the attitude that if one hive in a yard has problem they all have (or will have) the problem.


I manage the same way. I use this technique for t mites and nosema, mainly due to logistics and cost. I use to with the v mite when Apistan was working, it was so "relatively" cheap, effective and quick.

But now with the limited "cheap" and "easy" was of controlling vorroa, I have changed my technique a bit.
I dont feel a broad treatment plan is as effective when using the organic type treatments, which effectiveness does vary with conditions. I dont believe they handle higher infestations well at all, and many of them are so very limited in conditions for the application. On the other hand, what we have left for a effective chemical treatment holds hazards, compounding with subsequent treatments.
What I do is use these treatments in combination, treating the yards with low infest with organic treatments trying to help maintain lower populations, and the yards that are building higher mite levels, I knock them down with checkmite. 
I do a simple mite wash per yard, takes minutes. I think it will work, expecting the organic application to start holding more of the weight.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Your still working on threshold to determine treatment.

No, not at all Ian.

The absolute counts don't really matter (but one does want to use
consistent methods so that one gets consistent numbers), all that
matters is the *slope of the curve*. 

Regardless of the population of mites and regardless of the ratio
of mites to bees, when the mite population starts to "go exponential",
one has a hive in trouble.

This is the *only *reliable method, as the ramp-up point is when one
starts to get multiple mites per cell, and multiple viruses per mite
(and hence, per bee!), and that's when one's colony is facing a
serious problem.

"Thresholds" are appropriate when one has a very good handle on
the number of plants, and can estimate the pest-to-plant ratio
in terms of pests per acre or pests per plant. So, most of 
agriculture speaks of "thresholds". But beekeepers have multiple
moving targets, the bee population per hive, and the pest population
per hive, so "thresholds" are not just "wrong" for beekeeping, they
are complete and utter nonsense.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>multiple
moving targets, the bee population per hive, and the pest population
per hive, so "thresholds" are not just "wrong"

>>"Thresholds" are appropriate when one has a very good handle on
the number of plants, and can estimate the pest-to-plant ratio


Thats exactly what we do to determine our cropping thresholds, its all done by assessing random spots in a field, and estimating the pest - to - plant ratio. 
Thats what I am doing to determine my beekeeping thresholds, its all done by assessing random hives in specific yards, and estimating the pest - bee - ratio. 
When samples are taken early spring, before the main set of spring brooding starts, the distribution of mites / bee are fairly consistently distributed.
Our guys tell us we need to be seeing under 1% infestation in our hives with a spring sample,and under 5% in a fall sample to winter. And at those levels organic treatments work well to keep the mite populations at those levels.

>>slope of the curve

When working on the slope of a curve, you will have points on that curve that suggest treatment. Suggesting treatment to the hive at is particular stage, to prevent the pest from sickening the hive, causing economic injory. You wouldnt be counting mites if you wernt working on thresholds of the hives mite fall count.


----------

