# Adee Honey Farms



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I don't think you're missing anything. Many beekeepers use OA. In most other countries, including Canada, OA is an approved chemical to control Varroa populations. In the U.S., however, OA has not been approved. That means it's illegal to use OA as a pesticide in the U.S.

If you were bleaching the wood of your bee hives with OA, on the other hand. . . .


----------



## Black Creek (May 19, 2006)

ah... i wasnt sure. just found a bit more in another post talking about the adee farm


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

>> If you were bleaching the wood of your bee hives with OA, on the other hand. . . . 

That's good... I'll have to remember that one.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>If you were bleaching the wood of your bee hives with OA, on the other hand. . . . 

Or feeding your bees powdered sugar by the cup full?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Powdered sugar isn't approved either and neither are grease patties, because the only way anything is approved as a pesticide is if some entity pays the cost of the certification and continues to pay the cost of recertification. Who stand to make the money spent on certification on oxalic acid when everyone knows they can buy it at the hardware store for $6 for enough to treat a hundred hives or so. Same with powdered sugar. If someone marketed powdered sugar as a mite remedy would you buy it from them or go to the grocery store?


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

If the oxalic acid or powdered sugar is "packaged" differently and sold as "Brand X" for $20 rather than $6 as an "APPROVED" treatment then people will buy it at $20. 

But, for Pete's sake, don't get caught by the sugar police with "Domino" in the hives!


----------



## dcross (Jan 20, 2003)

I put oxalic in my hives because my bees do better with it. How it helps, I have no idea...


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{How it helps, I have no idea...}

We should not be using anything, including approved treatments, until we have taken the time to find out what they are, what they do and whether or not or bees actually need it. Some Chemicals like organophosphates are actually dangerous to us and our bees, others like FA & OA are certainly hazardous to both as well. 

I would encourage everyone to research thoroughly before exposing yourself, your bees, your honey and the industry to any treatments.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

There are certain "chemicals" used as a pest control that DO NOT require registration.

In 1996, EPA exempted certain minimum risk pesticides from FIFRA requirements (registration). Ingredients exempted include Acetic acid, Carbon dioxide, Cloves, Corn Oil, Cornstarch, Garlic, Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils, Lemon Grass Oil, Linseed Oil, Mineral Oil, Mint Oil, Olive Oil, Peppermint and Peppermint Oil, Sodium Chloride (common salt), Soybean Oil, Soy Flour, Sucrose, Thyme and Thyme Oil, Wintergreen Oil, Yeast and Zinc Metal. A complete list can be found at www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/pr2000-6.pdf - Accessed 7/6/06.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I doubt powdered sugar would have to be registered to be a legal "treatment." Looking at the EPA's requirements, I don't believe powdered sugar meets their standards as a "pesticide."

Does powdered sugar kill mites, or just knock them off the bees? (Or cause the bees to groom themselves, knocking mites off in the process.)

Could powdered sugar be used for other purposes in hives?

Do companies selling powdered sugar make claims or know that powdered sugar is commonly used to kill mites?

I think the same goes for grease patties.

If registered, though, companies that market OA must label it (for dose and such), and the facilities that produce OA must be subject to inspections by the EPA for pesticide manufacturing facilities. I imagine that would either drive up the price of OA, or cause the companies selling it as a wood bleach to specifically label it NOT for use in bee hives.


----------



## celtic beeman (Jan 9, 2007)

As a European beekeeper I can state some of the facts here.
Not every contry in Europe allows OA BUT it has been found that the varroa mite grows an imunity to this.
Even though OA is not allowed it's use is widespread as the mites cannot grow immune to it. 
The reason it is so effective is that the OA disolves the mouth parts of the mite which means it cannot feed and soon dies.
OA is used when supers are removed for derth and even though it is illegal it's use is widespread. 
Why is it not legal??
Well look at it this way. If you were a company paying taxes to the gov would you want people switching to a product that has a higher mite kill rate using something that can be purchased in a hardware store???? Would the government?


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

DaveW

thanks for posting that
I had gotten the impression from the discussions here that ANYTHING used in the attempt to eliminate a pest was prohibited unless registered

Dave


----------



## celtic beeman (Jan 9, 2007)

There are methods employed to kill mites thad does work and this is using essential oils. I have not tried this yet so can't give any info on it but I believe these oils are not listed as those that should not be used in hives. 
Personally if it works all the better and the bees will smell nice.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Not every contry in Europe allows OA BUT it has been found that the varroa mite grows an imunity to this.
Even though OA is not allowed it's use is widespread as the mites cannot grow immune to it." - Celtic Beeman

I'm not sure which way you're arguing, but I've argued this point before and will continue to do so. At this point, resistance to OA is not known in Varroa mites. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that it couldn't exist, just that it hasn't been found yet.

Why couldn't Varroa become "resistant" or "immune" or "tolerant" to OA? The bees are, apparently.

"The reason it is so effective is that the OA disolves the mouth parts of the mite which means it cannot feed and soon dies." -Celtic Beeman

I've heard this one several times, and I still doubt this one, too. The mouthparts of the mite are composed of the same stuff as the rest of the mite and the same stuff that covers bees. Chitin, waxy cuticle, etc. If OA dissolved the mouth parts of the mites, it would dissolve some of the rest of the mites' bodies, as well as parts of the bees. Why would it dissolve mites' mouthparts and not bees' mouthparts?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

One big difference between mites and bees has
to do with the whole subject of dehydration.

Damage to the cuticle of mites can prevent them
from keeping moisture inside their shell, and
this can be fatal. Bees drink water, so they
lose moisture as a normal part of their 
respiration process.

As far as "resistance" goes, one must
differentiate between a systemic attack (like 
Apistan) versus a physiological attack (like
OA or powdered sugar dusting). Varroa can
survive low levels of (systemic) pesticides,
and the offspring of the survivors may also
be able to survive increasing levels of 
exposure, but surviving a physiological 
attack does not imply that one's offspring
will have better chances than the survivor.

By way of analogy, there are no
bullet-resistant humans, despite hundreds
of years of gun use.


----------



## mwjohnson (Nov 19, 2004)

Anyone have a guess what it would cost to register O.A. for use in every state?

Is this a one time thing or would the "permit" have to be anually renewed?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"One big difference between mites and bees has
to do with the whole subject of dehydration." -Jim Fischer

OK, forget the mouthparts. What about the tracheae of honey bees? Those are also chitinous, covered with waxy cuticle, and very, very delicate (look at some under a microscope if you don't believe me). In fact, they're more delicate and likely to be damaged than the mouthparts of mites.

And what if the tracheae are damaged? Then it's not just a matter of "water loss."

Then how about the wings of bees? Why couldn't/wouldn't OA eat holes through the chitinous wings of honey bees? Wings are much thinner than Varroa mouthparts. How well would bees with holey wings fly?

"As far as "resistance" goes, one must
differentiate between a systemic attack (like 
Apistan) versus a physiological attack (like
OA or powdered sugar dusting). Varroa can
survive low levels of (systemic) pesticides,
and the offspring of the survivors may also
be able to survive increasing levels of 
exposure, but surviving a physiological 
attack does not imply that one's offspring
will have better chances than the survivor.

By way of analogy, there are no
bullet-resistant humans, despite hundreds
of years of gun use." -Jim Fischer

C'mon, Jim! You pick a strange example. Surviving a physiological attack CAN imply that one's offspring will have better chances surviving similar physiological attacks. How do you suppose that the fastest North American animals (pronghorns) became the fastest North American animals? Random chance? To outrun systemic attacks?

And how about the sensitive setae on flies and ****roaches and other insects that detect minor air movements and allow the insects to flee before being squashed? Just good fortune that the ones with the most sensitive setae happen to survive while the others don't?

Animals can and do evolve to avoid or resist physiological and mechanical attacks all the time. And what's the difference, really, between evolving behavioral mechanisms to survive physiological attacks and evolving resistance to systemic attacks?


----------



## celtic beeman (Jan 9, 2007)

Size is everything....
Compare a mite mouth to a bee's mouth.
It is like a drop of acid on a sheet of tin compared to a block of steel.
The bee is discomforted by the acid hence the clensing flights of little white bees after a gassing.
The Varroa injects dijestive chemicals and like a fly sucks up the fluid from the surface. It does not have long piercing mouth parts. Wet acid...


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"The Varroa injects dijestive chemicals and like a fly sucks up the fluid from the surface." -Celtic Beeman

Actually, Varroa feed on the hemolymph of bees. (Hemolymph is the "blood" of bees.)

"Compare a mite mouth to a bee's mouth." -Celtic Beeman

Fine, but compare a mite's mouthparts to the tracheae of honey bees. Compare a mite's mouthparts to the wings of bees. If the acid is that damaging to the mouthparts of Varroa, it should be just as damaging to the tracheae (breathing tubes) of honey bees and to the wings of honey bees, not to mention any other delicate structures of honey bees.


----------



## celtic beeman (Jan 9, 2007)

Yes the hemoglobin of the bee is extracted but the anti coagulants that are injected break down the tissue also. THis tissue breakdown is secondary.


----------



## celtic beeman (Jan 9, 2007)

Ther is one method of removing sorry reducing varroa mites in a hive and this is by breaking their life cycle.

The only problem with a comb trap is it is very time consuming for someone with a lot of hives.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

>> And what's the difference, really, between evolving behavioral mechanisms to survive physiological attacks and evolving resistance to systemic attacks? 

Well, I'll take a stab at it. 


>> evolving resistance to systemic attacks?

Let's look at the V-Mites resistance to Apistan, for example. Through misuse of the product mites can become resistant in ... 2-5 years? I'll be generous and say 20 years. 

>> Animals can and do evolve to avoid or resist physiological and mechanical attacks all the time. 

I wonder how many years it took the pronghorn to "evolve" to its current physical make up as the fastest North American animal?
And the evolution of the setae on flies and roaches?
20 million years? - 10 million - 1 million?

Difference - 999,980 years


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Anyone have a guess what it would cost to register O.A. for use in every state?


It cost us 30-50000$ to buy alot of the studdies from EU, to satisfy our governments reglitory system and provide some back for further studdy.

What does it provide the beekeeper? 
Governments assurances, guidlines,and precautions when using the product in the hive. Potential hazards of using the products to the bees, honey, and beekeeper. Recomended applications to best treat the hives and recomendations to prevent damages to the colony. Get the department versed in the use of the product in the hive to allow treatment assistance.

There is alot of good that comes with registering a hive product. For one, beekeeper assurance that he isnt working overtime on a well sold idea,


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Anyone have a guess what it would cost to register O.A. for use in every state?


There is no need to register it in every state,
as work is underway to get a full "Section 3"
approval for OA, which would be federal, and
apply to the entire USofA.

See:
http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP/regional_grants/2005/R7-2005.htm

_"European studies suggest that oxalic acid is a
good candidate for becoming the chemical tool of
choice for controlling varroa mites in beehives
(Imdorf et al.1997; Arcuelo 2000; Charrire and
Imdorf 2002; Nanetti et al. 2003), and the 
American Beekeeping Federation has initiated the
process of applying for Section 3 registration of 
oxalic acid for use in the U.S. Their application
will include data from Europe and Canada but will
need corroborating evidence of efficacy from
studies conducted in the U.S."_

So, while there is progress, it is still depressing
to see that the EPA continues to have a "not
invented here" problem with work done outside
the US, and we are forced to wait for Marion
to do nothing but retrace the footsteps of
researchers elsewhere to satisfy the jingoistic
prejudices of the EPA, which twiddles its
bureaucratic thumbs while more colonies crash 
from varroa. Marion's a good researcher, and 
could be working on more interesting and useful
things with the same time and money if the EPA
would accept EU research as "valid". Kinda sad.
No wonder Marion has been openly teaching how to
use OA (*NOW*, wink, wink, nudge, nudge)
whenever he speaks to beekeepers.

The state of MN found "blue shop towels", and 
had to take enforcement action. I doubt that
their concern was focused on the OA as much as
it was on the off-label fluvalinate. If Adee's
people had followed Marion's suggested techniques
for using OA, there would have been no evidence
of the treatment, not that I (or Marion) would
*ever* suggest that anyone use OA before
it is approved for use by the EPA (wink, wink,
nudge, nudge...)



> Animals can and do evolve...


Of course they did, but it took *eons*,
as Mike Gillmore pointed out above. I, for one,
would be quite happy with a varroa treatment to
which varroa might develop resistance in a few 
eons, as I will be safely and cozily dead and 
forgotten long before the problem might arise.

And the example of a _faster_ animal was
not even a valid example of a reaction to a 
physiological attack, was it? The faster animal 
is no more tooth and claw resistant if it 
happens to be caught, now is it?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

I see talk that damage by OA to the cuticle of mites can prevent them from keeping moisture inside their shell, and honeybees loose moisture via respiration.

Remember now that ALL insects have an exoskeleton to protect them. This shell when damaged can cause harm to the insect in allowing disease to enter and moisture to enter or escape. 

Also, ALL insects including varroa loose moisture as a normal part of their respiration, and the varroa also loose moisture via breathing thru an external plastron. 

How honeybee is immune to OA damage, and varroa not is a strange assumption. We need to revise the statement to read both varroa and honeybee exoskeletons will be damaged by OA and allow moisture to escape and disease to enter


Interesting to note that in the Fall Dwindle Disease Report they say:

4. All producers experienced some form of extraordinary Stress at least 2 months prior to the first incidence of die off associated with Fall dwindle disease. The nature of this stress was variable but included nutritional stress.

Then we have people wanting to promote OA as a treatment which if found to contribute to nutritional deficiencies. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxalic_acid 

"Thus, oxalic acid also combines with metals such as calcium, iron, sodium, magnesium, and potassium in the body to form crystals of the corresponding oxalates, which irritate the gut and kidneys. Because it binds vital nutrients such as calcium, long-term consumption of foods high in oxalic acid can lead to nutrient deficiencies."

[ January 12, 2007, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"I wonder how many years it took the pronghorn to "evolve" to its current physical make up as the fastest North American animal?
And the evolution of the setae on flies and roaches?
20 million years? - 10 million - 1 million?

Difference - 999,980 years" -Mike Gillmore

I don't know that I agree with your assumptions on this one, Mike.

First, the greater the selective pressure, the more rapidly either 1) the organisms evolve, or 2) the organisms become extinct.

As far as setae on ****roaches, specifically, we don't really know how long it took. Right now, the origins of insects are being pushed back farther than we had previously assumed.

But for the sake of the argument, let's just place the origins of insects as occurring roughly 400 million years before present. ****roaches, very similar to the roaches present on earth today, were wandering around 350 million years ago. That's a difference of only 50 million years (I know, I know that seems like a long time -- but remember that that has to include not only the evolution of a few setae, but the evolution of an entire order of insects).

Who knows how rapidly such an evolution occurred?

Based on current information, within 1 million years, evolution of insects may have progressed from tiny, simply springtails all the way through many of the orders we see today. That's an amazing radiation, in a short period of time, evolutionarily speaking.

"Of course they did, but it took eons,
as Mike Gillmore pointed out above." -Jim Fischer

Read up on evolution. Some shifts have occurred surprizingly rapidly.

Think of the European corn borer. This moth wasn't introduced to North America to meet up with corn until the 1800s. It arrived and made the jump quickly. It had to adapt not only to the biochemistry of the plant, but to the physiology as well. And it did that almost instantly.

"And the example of a faster animal was
not even a valid example of a reaction to a 
physiological attack, was it? The faster animal 
is no more tooth and claw resistant if it 
happens to be caught, now is it?" -Jim Fischer

Why isn't it valid? Many "resistant" pests are not resistant, either, if you increae the concentration of the pesticide or change the timing of the application or drown them in a liquid containing the pesticide, or something along those lines.

Based on what you guys are saying -- since Varroa can't possibly be resistant to OA -- we should be able to eliminate Varroa simply by treating all hives with OA. Do you really believe that?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Interesting, that the experts are aware of the possibility of resistance to OA in varroa.

"The data will also facilitate future comparisons of toxicity if mite resistance to OA becomes evident."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=17066785


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

All deaths are physiologic deaths. The difference between a toxin and a medication is a matter of dose. Mites developing resistance to OA or powder sugar may take millenia, but it is theoretically possible.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Short and to-the-point -- very nice, Aspera!

I have one bone to pick with your post: developing resistance to OA or powdered sugar could take millenia, or it could happen very rapidly. Why should it take any longer than developing resistance to, say, Apistan?

Based on the abstract that Joe posted, OA appears to kill mites through acute toxicity, not through mechanical actions.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Read up on evolution. Some shifts have occurred surprizingly rapidly.--(Kieck)

ahh, Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium

Some examples of rapid evolution:

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/evol/lizard.html

"Darwin thought that natural selection had to be slow and gradual," Losos said. "I think it is clear he was mistaken. In some cases change can be very rapid." 

The results of the experiment echo observations made in the 1980s of one species of Finch on one Galapagos island. Over a ten year period there were three major swings in the ecosystem of the island. At the start of the observation period, there were two morphs of the Finch, a large beaked morph and a small beaked morph. One change in the ecosystem favored the large beaked morph over the small beaked morph, with the latter nearly becoming extinct. A second change in the ecosystem favored the now nearly extinct small beaked morph, and within a short time it was the dominant morph, with the large beaked morph on its way to extinction. Finally, the ecosystem shifted again, and populations stabilized. Today, a third morph has appeared, with a beak intermediate between the large and small beaked morphs. Over a ten year period, three natural selection events occurred, suggesting that evolutionary change might be more rapid than ever before suspected.


http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PUNCTUEQ.html

....This suggests that the large combined effects of PP and microevolutionary change have allowed this population of squirrels to keep pace with rapid changes in environmental conditions over the last 10 years.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Mites developing resistance to OA or powder sugar may take millenia,--(A)

Not sure it will be that long. The mode of action in OA is still not altogether clear, so how is determind that resistance will take longer?

It took only 3 years for varroa to develop resistance to coumaphos (Elzen and Westervelt 2002)


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

>It took only 3 years for varroa to develop resistance to coumaphos 

How long did it take you to develop resistance to the last flu you had. One episode? How long would it take you to develope resistance to battery acid poured on your hand? Millenia? 

So, I would say that the speed of resistance to Coumaphos in mites, has nothing to do with the speed of resistance in mite to OA.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Michael:

Developing immunity to an organism or virus (such as having the flu) is not the same as genetic resistance.

And I have gotten battery acid on my hands, and survived quite nicely. Am I "resistant?"  

The speed of developing resistance has far less to do with the mechanism of attack that with the selective pressure of the attack. Increase the selective pressure, and "resistance" should develop more rapidly. Otherwise, the attacked organisms will become extinct.

As long as relatively few beekeepers are using OA, the selective pressure will be fairly low. As soon as most beekeepers begin using OA, the selective pressure increases.

Based on the abstract in the link Joe (Pcolar) posted, OA kills mites because of the acute toxicity, not because it eats through their exoskeletons. That makes it a chemical action rather than a physical action.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

I guess I'm going to jump ship here guys. First, I really don't buy the theory of evolution to begin with... I was just trying to make a point and stay within the initiated perameters of the discussion.

Bowing out I'll just say this. My father has been around for 76 years and he has yet to witness any species that has mutated or evolved whatsoever in response to environmental or physical pressures. Some species have succumbed and are now extinct, but none have physically altered their design to combat these forces against them. 

The "experts" view of OA resistance - "possibility".... "if" ... ??? 
I feel that until there is concrete evidence to prove OA resistance, we are probably good for the next 76 years.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--How long would it take you to develope resistance to battery acid poured on your hand? Millenia?--Michael Palmer)

Mike,

You are making an assumption that because OA is an acid, the mode is by burning the cuiticle. This is a common misconception with beekeepers. In fact, little is known about OA mode of action.

Also, according to the experts: 

Among substances of natural origin used against V. destructor, the risk of resistance is higher for oxalic acid. 

See links:

http://shorterlink.co.uk/6577 

Although OA provides effective control of V. destructor, its mode of action is unknown.

http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP/regional_grants/2005/R7-2005.htm 

Little is known about the mode of action of oxalic acid and how it is distributed in honey bee colonies


http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/apido/pdf/2001/02/milani.pdf?access=ok 

Among substances of natural origin used against V. destructor, the risk of resistance is higher for oxalic acid. High efficacy in the absence of capped brood, ease of use of the application by trickling, extremely low cost, independence from the temperature and shortage of alternatives might make treatments with this acid widely used in the future and thus increase selection pressure for resistance.

[ January 12, 2007, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--The faster animal 
is no more tooth and claw resistant if it 
happens to be caught, now is it?--(JF)

No, but the slower turtle is.









[ January 12, 2007, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>How do you suppose that the fastest North American animals (pronghorns) became the fastest North American animals?

You're suggesting they started out slow but for a few fast ones, and the slow ones got eaten and the fast ones didn't and raised even faster ones and all the slow ones died and all the fast ones survived?

Isn't it just as plausible that they all just started out that way? Really fast?

>And how about the sensitive setae on flies and ****roaches and other insects that detect minor air movements and allow the insects to flee before being squashed?

So, there was a lot of selective pressure on flies and ****roaches as a result of people trying to squash them? I suppose, ever since man has been sitting around eating slow Prong Horns, they've been swatting insensitive flies ****roaches- and like the fast prong horns, the more sensitive bugs escaped death and bred the superior extra-sensitive bugs of today?

Isn't it just as likely that they all had sensitive setae to begin with? What good are insensitive setae? What are setae anyways?









I suppose there are examples of features and functions in animals that aid their survival that originated as chance mutations a long time ago, and that these were naturally selected for over time, but I can't think of any right off. One has to wonder how the original creatures, without the benefit of the survival trait or function managed to survive in the first place.

Am I being naive?


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

>>> http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/apido/pdf/2001/02/milani.pdf?access=ok 

Among substances of natural origin used against V. destructor, the risk of resistance is higher for oxalic acid. <<<

This report is 6 1/2 years old. If the risk of resistance is that great, why has it not happened yet?

How long has OA been used in Europe? Why are there no resistant mites yet? 

I agree that there seems to be no conclusive explanation for the action of OA, but where is all of this "resistance"?

* OK, I'll shut up now. Thanks for listening.









[ January 12, 2007, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Mike Gillmore ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hello Mike,

Repeating what the experts have said:

"Among substances of natural origin used against V. destructor, the risk of resistance is higher for oxalic acid." 

--How long has OA been used in Europe? Why are there no resistant mites yet?--(MG)

I don't know that we here would have resistant mites becuase beekeepers are using OA in Europe.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

>Mike,

You are making an assumption that because OA is an acid, the mode is by burning the cuiticle.

No, not really. It was just my crude way of saying that unlike previous chemicals that do things like block Sodium receptors in the mite's nervous system, OA lowers the ph on the mite or in the mite's environment to the point where the mite can't survive. I don't really know the exact cause of death. But, I think it may be more of a physical thing like acidity or suffocation, and not like nerve agents, etc.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hello Mike P,

I understand Mike, but as long as we have only assumptions of OA's mode of action, we therefore cannot say for sure that it will take a millennia for varroa to develop resistance to OA.

Experts say that there is a risk that varroa will develop resistance to OA, and thats the information we have from those with credentials in the field.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

>I understand Mike, but as long as we have only assumptions of OA's mode of action, we therefore cannot say for sure that it will take a millennia for varroa to develop resistance to OA.

But, the oposite is also true. We can't say that it won't take that long.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--But, the oposite is also true. We can't say that it won't take that long.-- 

True, thats why we have experts that know better than we do, and they say that there is risk.

Among substances of natural origin used against V. destructor, the risk of resistance is higher for oxalic acid.

[ January 12, 2007, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

kiech sezs:
I have one bone to pick with your post: developing resistance to OA or powdered sugar could take millenia, or it could happen very rapidly. Why should it take any longer than developing resistance to, say, Apistan?

tecumseh replies:
this is not a difficult question kiech in that it really is more a question of population dynamics with just a pinch of genetics thrown in just to make the soup flavorable.

the idea is that those products that are 'effective insecticides' kill all the indiviuduals that have NO tolerance to the that particular product. since most insecticides (or any kind of action) are not totally-absolutely effective, the survivors are those which do have tolerance to 'that' particular product. these individual then breed, which mean the almost all the next generation of individuals have tolerance to 'that' product. the more you weed out individuals without resistance the more likely that all the next generation will display total tolerance to 'that' product. around this idea is why some folks will suggest that changing formulation or kind of product would be a game plan that would be more effective in the long term.

mike gillmore adds:
Bowing out I'll just say this. My father has been around for 76 years and he has yet to witness any species that has mutated or evolved whatsoever in response to environmental or physical pressures. Some species have succumbed and are now extinct, but none have physically altered their design to combat these forces against them. 

tecumseh replies:
are you really paying attention here mike? quite evidently anything a person is determined not to see, they will not see. and one doesn't even have to wait 76 years. one can see it quite quickly in a petri dish, over a bit longer time frame we have seen the same change in staph (sp?) infections in a hospital environment.... or for a bit less dramatic picture, look at how (and over a fairly short time frame) much 'purebred' dogs have changed by the force of fashion on selective breeding. the same observation could be made for bees... at least in regards to their color and behavior.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

>> ..quite evidently anything a person is determined not to see, they will not see.

You're correct on this. I have chosen to ignore it. But when we start seeing salmon growing wings to hurdle the dams we have constructed in their waterways, I may pull my head out of the sand.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--But when we start seeing salmon growing wings to hurdle the dams we have constructed in their waterways,--(MG)

I couldnt find reference to salmon with wings, but I did manage to find reference to rapid evolution, even in salmon.









Rapid Evolution Rampant at Sea 

http://www.seagrant.uconn.edu/evolsea.html 

"Most examples of rapid evolution are from land studies. But aquatic scientists are quickly realizing that rapid evolution is also rampant at sea. For instance, selective removal of large fish in commercial fisheries has led to dramatic changes in the size of some species. A delicious example (bad pun intended) is the 30% decrease in the mean size of pink salmon caught off British Columbia, Canada, since the 1950s, a fact documented by fisheries biologist W.E. Ricker."


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I would point out that penicillin resistant Staphlococcus took took years if not a generation to rear its ugly head, and most bacteria have a generation time of 20 min. Since then, it has been discovered that resistance plasmids evolved *before* the discovery of modern antimicrobials. My point is that plasmids, resistance, and other interactions are all things that we didn't understand when we started using penicillin. There is a lot that we don't know about OA, and it doesn't take Darwin to figure out that varroa may have some surprises for us yet. Also, resistance isn't necessarily evidence of evolution at work. There are also short term changes such as physiologic adaptation (within the individual), selective breeding, behavioral plasticity and changes in gene frequency. Punctuated equallibrium is a special and probably rare case of evolution that has received a lot of press because Gould was such a superbly clear and entertaining writer. Graduallism is still the rule for speciation.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

"How long would it take you to develope resistance to battery acid poured on your hand? Millenia?"

Of course, we don't have to develop resistance, we simply have to learn to avoid battery acid, and to then pass that knowledge on to others. A form of hygenic behavior. Could it be that bees are capable of managing mites if allowed to do so? When we talk about "managing" bees, chemical resistance of mites, etc. we naturally assume that whatever methods we explore must fit nicely into a square wooden box with precise dimensions, moveable frames, etc. and that the results must satisfy certain criteria such as gentleness and productivity. Seems like we place a lot of restrictions on the bees who might already have a method of resisting the mites. I understand that economics dictate how we keep bees, but when the discussion takes off on evolution and resistance and such we probably ought to keep in mind that observations made in the Galapagos or the Pacific ocean and their resultant conclusions are far removed from that tiny little white box in the backyard.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--we probably ought to keep in mind that observations made in the Galapagos or the Pacific ocean and their resultant conclusions are far removed from that tiny little white box in the backyard--(C)

But isnt what is going on in the Galapagos basically what every beekeeper does? Selecting the best suited stock to meet the beekeepers needs equating to natural selection on Galapagos for stock best suited for species survival needs?They are both the result of 'selective pressures' on a species.

[ January 13, 2007, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

"But isnt what is going on in the Galapagos basically what every beekeeper does? Selecting the best suited stock to meet the beekeepers needs equating to natural selection on Galapagos for stock best suited for species survival needs?"

It is up to a point. But the organisms in the wild are not restricted as to the types of defenses or adaptations that they can develop and employ to fend off threats. Domestic bees have some pretty restrictive parameters placed on them by us. We demand a certain temperment, a high level of surplus honey production, and an ability to build up a large population quickly in the spring for example. This suggests that those attributes are not subject to being altered by the bees if they needed to in order to fend off pests because we would soon get rid of those particular bees. If the 4 foot long comb structure actually reduced mite loads, we probably wouldn't use it because of the difficulties of handling that size of hive.


----------



## raybmn (Sep 22, 2003)

Hi all,
My response to the talk of this thread is this...When you put stress on a species trying to kill it, you at first kill alot, and then the species breeds from the survivors and becomes stronger.

When you try to MAKE every individual of a species survive, at first it looks like you have helped the species survive. But after the species reaches the point that alot of the population is bred from those that were MADE to live, the species is weakened.

So, here is the problem. Man is trying to kill off all the mites, and trying to MAKE all the bees survive.

Quite possibly the mite problem would go away if man were to try to MAKE all the mites survive, which would weaken the mites, while the mites were strenghthening the bees. 

Also in response to the individual that bowed out by professing his disbelief in evolution.... I believe that a form of life can, and does evolve in response to stresses, but evolution should never be given credit for the start of life. Evolution needs a form of already present life in order to work at adapting to a stress.

Just mm opinion.

Thank you and have a good day all,
Ray B.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Wow... we've got quite a mix of stuff being 
trotted out here... everything from utterly
discredited theories about "punctuated equilibrium"
to out-of-context quotes taken from boilerplate
attached to government reports.

I'm not sure what to make of it, as I am not sure
why the "argument" started in the first place. 
Does anyone mind another weapon in the arsenal
of things to use against varroa? If some want to
persist in insisting that mites can somehow develop
resistance to a purely physiological attack, can
they at least agree that a substance like OA is
a nice thing to alternate with something else?

Or is this simply a contest where those who
advocate "no treatments" are going to continue
to try and shout down those who wish to discuss
a new treatment option?


----------



## celtic beeman (Jan 9, 2007)

Jim I think it was my fault this started.
I have sent mails to some of the top guys and the word is that toxisity is the reason OA kills mites and not bees "size is relative" A large enough dose will kill bees and mites.

Looking through the methods available to control mites the best I can see is trapping the mites and removing them. 
Has anyone tried the esential oil method of killing mites? 
Alternating treatments could be the way to go. If mites do develop a resistance to treatments then this would prolong the development of resistance.
Is there any research into bio warfare I know there has been some research in europe for other insects where predator insects were introduced. Then again look at the mess can happen as the bugs broght in then become a problem.
What is realy needed is something that can wipe out mites before they can become resistant to.
Interesting reading all the points of view.


----------



## celtic beeman (Jan 9, 2007)

Here is something I want to throw out on the table......

I read somewhere that mites have always been there, the difference now is that in the bees natural home (tree trunk etc) when mites fall off they fall into places they can not get back to the bees so easily.
I have read reports that hives with varroa floors report lower mite counts and there is a new floor on the market in Europe called a habby beekeeper floor sold by EH Thorne in the UK that reports an even greater mite control without any chemical interaction.
What are people't thoughts on this?


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

ray sezs:
So, here is the problem. Man is trying to kill off all the mites, and trying to MAKE all the bees survive.

tecumseh replies:
not all the bees... just my bees. ha..

without any crutches provided by man the ahb now appears to have developed resistance to the varroa. so I would suggest that if bee keepers had in fact done absolutely nothing (zero, nada, zilch) in regards to the varroa a host-parasite equilibrum would have developed for the european honeybee. so by trying to save MY bees the time frame of this problem is lengthened.

that's my story and I'm stickin' to it...


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>What are people't thoughts on this?

I think a SBB (Screened Bottom Board) or as they seem to call them in Europe, an Open Mesh Floor, is a useful thing. I don't think it gets rid of that many mites by itself, but when using FGMO or powdered sugar or even Apistan it makes a significant difference. It's worth it for the ability to monitor the mites better and the better ventilation during the flow.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{Quite possibly the mite problem would go away if man were to try to MAKE all the mites survive, which would weaken the mites, while the mites were strenghthening the bees.}

At the cost of most of the Beekeeping industry both commerical and hobby (such as happened with AFB in the early part of the last century). This then tips the domino's adding the loss of plentiful food resulting from pollination of monoculture farming needed to feed 300 million people in this country as well as millions in other countries. How much are we willing to gamble on "quite possibly" to avoid treatments? A few examples of the impact of totally organic farming at the Markets I attend.
Bok Choy - $6.00/head
Chicken (meat) (free range/no anitbiotics) $6.79/lb 
Eggs (free range chickens) $3.75 $4.25 dozen -of course this changes once bird flu hits. At that point farmers have nothing to eat, nothing to sell us to eat. 

This in an agricutlural market system with little pressure as most farmers use standard commerical methods and the amount of truly organic shoppers is minimal. The higher price is simply a reflection of an inablility to sustainably produce a large number of carrots on one farm because one round of nemotodes destroys or deforms every carrot. It's not about deformed vegetables, it's about small isolated farms practicing the ideal we all would like to see collapsing when monoculture farming adds impossible pressure to the system and is destroyed by natural forces controlling speceis overpopulation through disease and pest. 

As we continue to walk this tightrope we need to keep all our options open and act in the most responible manner as stewards of the earth and as farmers feeding an overpopulation of humans.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I've been away for the three-day weekend. I'm back now. Wow, this thread has progressed since I've been gone -- and it was well off-track before I left!  

"First, I really don't buy the theory of evolution to begin with.... My father has been around for 76 years and he has yet to witness any species that has mutated or evolved whatsoever in response to environmental or physical pressures. Some species have succumbed and are now extinct, but none have physically altered their design to combat these forces against them." -Mike Gillmore

I respect your choice not to believe in what you perceive as "evolution," but "evolution" is simply change over time. Extinctions are part of evolution. Selection is part of evolution. Mutations are part of evolution. Variations arising from mutations are part of evolution.

If you deny evolution in practice, you cannot be selectively breeding bees. Deliberate selection of certain traits assumes the basic tenets of evolution are correct.

I imagine -- like most people who deny evolution -- that what you're really opposed to is the idea that a creator may not have created everything the way it is today. That's a different argument, not for this thread.

"You're suggesting they started out slow but for a few fast ones, and the slow ones got eaten and the fast ones didn't and raised even faster ones and all the slow ones died and all the fast ones survived?

Isn't it just as plausible that they all just started out that way? Really fast?" -George Ferguson

"Just started out that way?" That gets back to the creation-versus-big bang argument.

If you assume a creator made everything the way it is today, and therefore pronghorns all started out really fast, then why do some animals become extinct? That same creator is through dealing with them? Or, the creator made them flawed in the first place? Or, humans have muddled everything up so badly that we're causing some of the creator's creation to vanish?

Assuming pronghorns evolved to be the species they are today, then their ancestors would have all had to have been faster than the ancestors of their "relatives," which would make their "relatives" no longer "relatives."

"So, there was a lot of selective pressure on flies and ****roaches as a result of people trying to squash them? I suppose, ever since man has been sitting around eating slow Prong Horns, they've been swatting insensitive flies ****roaches- and like the fast prong horns, the more sensitive bugs escaped death and bred the superior extra-sensitive bugs of today?

Isn't it just as likely that they all had sensitive setae to begin with? What good are insensitive setae? What are setae anyways? " -George Ferguson

****roaches (appearing much as they do today more than 350 million years ago) have been around much, much, much longer than humans (around roughly 100,000 years). [That is, unless you believe the Bishop of Ussher and Sir James Lightfoot, and the entire world was created at 9 a.m. on October 3, 4004 B.C.] So humans wouldn't have been trying to squash early ****roaches.

But -- like all insects -- ****roaches are prone to desiccation, and air currents increase the rate of evaporation. ****roaches that can sense air currents and move away from them could/would have an advantage over ****roaches that cannot sense air currents. Organs (in this case, setae) that can detect air currents can be a huge advantage.

In fact, the reason ****roaches flee when you enter a room and turn on the light is because they detect the slight air currents of your movement, not because they're scared of light.

Many insects have sensitive setae. Not just flies and ****roaches. Insensitive setae -- if there truly is such a thing -- can serve other functions, such as serving as protective coverings or insulating. 

To answer the question of what setae are, setae are the "hairs" you see on insects. The "hair" on honey bees, for example is not hair at all, but setae. Setae and hair are different biologically. Insects do not have hair; they have setae.

To answer Jim Fischer's post, I'm as much to blame as Celtic Beeman for the direction of this thread. OA sounds like it could be a fine chemical treatment against Varroa on honey bees -- I'm not disparaging it in the least. However, one of the "benefits" of OA that some people keep claiming is that mites cannot become resistant to OA. I think that belief is naive.

If we assume that mites can't become resistant or tolerant to OA and they do, then what? If we assume that mites can become resistant or tolerant to OA and use it accordingly (i. e., not just using it as a preemptive treatment, using OA judiciously, using it according to the "label," trying to manage colonies and using OA only for rescue treatments, etc.), and never find resistance to OA in Varroa, what harm has it done us?


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Kieck - A very well thought out and interesting response. 

>>I respect your choice not to believe in what you perceive as "evolution," but "evolution" is simply change over time.

But if you trace back all of the "changes" through time into the distant past then the commencement of the "evolution" process is claimed to be space "dust" or "gasses"..... And that's where I get hung up.

It would take more "faith" for me to believe that everything I see around me somehow managed to come together from gas or dust, then it would to believe that there is a supreme being that designed all of this and created it.... 4000 years ago or 40 billion years ago, who knows? I'll agree things mutate and change over time from their original make-up... but from gas? 


>> If you deny evolution in practice, you cannot be selectively breeding bees.

I really don't see the connection. Let's say you started to remove all people from New York City who were over 5' tall and continued to do so over many generations, what would you end up with? A city filled with short people!








Have these remaining short people "evolved" or have we just selected "out" the tall people and left behind those who procreate short?
Isn't that what we are doing in selective bee breeding?

* Sorry.. I said I was bailing out. Guess I lied.









[ January 16, 2007, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Mike Gillmore ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Let's say you started to remove all people from New York City who were over 5' tall and continued to do so over many generations, what would you end up with? A city filled with short people!
Have these remaining short people "evolved" or have we just selected "out" the tall people and left behind those who procreate short?
Isn't that what we are doing in selective bee breeding?

Precisely. No serious breeder of anything that I know of is expecting to do anything BUT breed OUT something. You can't breed IN something that isn't already there. Waiting for "Evolution" to come up with something new, will be a VERY LONG wait.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

First Mike, you don't have to go all the way back to gas and dust. You can stop anywhere along the way and embrace the concept of evolution.

That said, I think you've got a good point- by breeding bees, are we really creating a new species or are we just selecting various traits and minimizing others- altering the genetic stew a bit. We're not making mutations happen, we're not really creating anything new- like your short people in New York City. They may be genetically predisposed to "procreate short" as you say, but genetically, they're still human.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

(they're still human.}

Having been to the upper east side recently I could argue that point!  

If we can't breed anything in why are we working so hard on bee genetics??


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>why are we working so hard on bee genetics

Because you can breed out. You can breed out the ones that aren't resistant to the mites. You can breed out the ones that aren't productive. You can breed out the ones that are mean. You can breed out the ones that are runny.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Having been to the upper east side recently I could argue that point!

Point taken. Bad example









>If we can't breed anything in why are we working so hard on bee genetics??

Well good question Joel. I'd love to have someone better educated in evolution and genetics jump up and tell me I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. That said, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

We can make changes in bees through our breeding efforts, but we're not going to create a new species as a result. We can, through selection and selective breeding enhance or promote certain combinations of genes to obtain bees with the characteristics we're looking for- higher honey production or less swarminess for example. We can also cross different species for example breeding Carniolan and Scutellata and end up with a new breed (AHB) with different (and possibly undesirable) characteristics (woops!), but that's nothing Mother Nature couldn't (and hasn't) done on her own. We're not going to be able to cross honey bees and sparrows to get a bee with feathers or bees with fish to get bees that swim. We could try exposing bees to ionizing radiation to induce random mutations (totally new, never before seen gene combinations) but chances are those mutations- like the two-headed calves that used to turn up from time to time at the local dairy farm- are unlikely be desirable, advantageous alterations to your basic bee.

The premise is that all the genes for variation within a species are already in there. Variation within a species occurs naturally, and some of those variations (or combinations) are advantageous, which means they're better able to survive because of them and other variations are not so good which means bees with those traits are less likely to survive. Within those extremes there is wide latitude for variation and selection. That is what bee breeding is about- obtaining the combination of genes (traits) that are desirable and enhance the bees ability to survive, and thrive, and function in a fashion we desire.

Of course, what we desire in a bee may or may not be what they need to survive.

Gotta head to work! It's somewhere below zero this morning...


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Let's say you started to remove all people from 
> New York City who were over 5' tall and 
> continued > to do so over many generations, what
> would you end up with? A city filled with short
> people! [Smile]

No, not at all. I hope you were merely joking.

This is a basic misconception about physiology and
inheritance. The operative concept here is 
"regression to the mean". What it means is that
even if you eliminated all the folks over 5 feet
tall, you would *STILL* have a perfectly
normal mix of short and tall offspring.

Assuming that you have not limited your breeding 
pool to people with dwarfism, the odds are that
the offspring of two abnormally short people will
be taller than they are (closer to the mean).

So, your height-based genocide would be in vain,
as one cannot argue with or defeat the concept
of "regression to the mean", which in essence,
proves that we can't breed a race of 9-foot tall
basketball players, nor can we breed a race of
3-foot tall cave explorers. Breeders of miniature
versions of horses and dogs certainly do produce
a certain number of "what they wanted", but what
they fail to mention is all the "undesirable" 
offspring that also result, and what they do with
them.

I myself have been working for over a decade to
cross honey bees with fireflies to meet the needs
of beekeepers who come home from work, and must
work their hives in the evening.









I've also been working to cross an onion with
a donkey, with mixed results. Sometimes, I get
an onion with long ears, sometimes I get donkeys
that smell terrible, but on rare occasions, I
get a piece of tail that makes your eyes water.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Heres a link related to your discussion:

Mendel's Experiment 
Gregor Mendel, AKA "Father of Genetics"

http://library.thinkquest.org/20830/Textbook/Genetics.htm

[ January 17, 2007, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"I'll agree things mutate and change over time from their original make-up...." -Mike Gillmore

And that's "evolution." Plain and simple. Evolution is "change over time." Not "creation of new species," not "starting from gasses and dust," just "change over time." If organisms change, they evolve.

Arguing how it all started is a different argument entirely. The evolution versus creation argument is flawed from the start -- the one is a biological process, the other a metaphysical question.

"Precisely. No serious breeder of anything that I know of is expecting to do anything BUT breed OUT something. You can't breed IN something that isn't already there. Waiting for "Evolution" to come up with something new, will be a VERY LONG wait." -Michael Bush

We've been around and around on this issue before. I've mentioned before that, specifically, orchid breeders often treat pollen and/or seeds with mutagens to induce mutations -- in other words, these breeders are attempting to breed IN things that aren't there. And they do it quite successfully. Other plant breeders do similar things.

To some extent, animal breeders can do similar things. Sure mutations (particularly "favorable" mutations) are exceedingly rare, but they can and do happen. Those mutations produce new traits.

The "going rate," as accepted by many biologists, for mutations in organisms is about 1 in 1 million. That seems insignificant, until you consider the numbers of organisms on the earth. How many queen bees are produced each year in the U.S.?

Besides that, I know animal breeders who are working with one breed, observe a trait they desire in another breed, and attempt to breed IN that trait.

Is the glass half empty, or half full? Do bee breeders attempt to breed in traits, or breed out bees that don't have those traits?

So, now, if a bee breeder has a line of bees and wants to add hygenic behavior, and that breeder uses bees from another breeder's line that already show hygenic behavior, is he adding traits, or removing traits?

"We can make changes in bees through our breeding efforts, but we're not going to create a new species as a result." -George Ferguson

I know this is a different line of thought than George was intending, but those changes are still evolution. Could we create a new species as a result? I think possibly. Do we want to create a new species? Not most beekeepers that I know.

"The premise is that all the genes for variation within a species are already in there." -George Ferguson

Except traits that appear through mutations. Sure, many mutations may be "bad," but not all are. How could all the genes for variation within a single species be present without new genes being added? Look at it either way. Through evolution, species are founded by limited numbers of individuals. Those few individuals could not possibly have had all the possible alleles for all possible traits that appear today. Somewhere, alleles were added. Through strict creationism, a creator created a few individual animals of each species. Again, it simply isn't possible that those animals had all possible alleles for all possible traits that we see today. [Besides, think of Noah and the ark; if that story is interpreted strictly, most animals went through a severe genetic bottleneck within the time frame of human history. Only two individuals of most animals survived, according to strict interpretation. Where did all that diversity come from that we see today?]

"This is a basic misconception about physiology and
inheritance. The operative concept here is 
"regression to the mean". What it means is that
even if you eliminated all the folks over 5 feet
tall, you would STILL have a perfectly
normal mix of short and tall offspring." -Jim Fischer

Not entirely true. If short people are more likely to have short offspring, then there won't be a "regression to the mean." Think of the Mbuti in Africa.

By the way, "regression toward [or to] the mean" is a statistical measurement, based in part on sampling error. It doesn't really mean that organisms will always revert to "average" in populations.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

>>> And that's "evolution." Plain and simple. Evolution is "change over time." Not "creation of new species," not "starting from gasses and dust," just "change over time."

That's not what I was taught in school... back in the dark ages. Guess I better go back and read the revised editions. Apparently the Theory of Evolution has "evolved"


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Or, maybe your teachers slanted things.









Ever read, "On the Origin of Species," by Charles Darwin? No where in the book does he deal with the metaphysical creation. But he does define biological evolution.

Oh, and by the way, if you do read Darwin's book, please notice that he begins with examples of selection by human breeders to propose "evolution" in animals.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

>If some want to persist in insisting that mites can somehow develop resistance to a purely physiological attack, can they at least agree that a substance like OA is a nice thing to alternate with something else....

After my small cell regression experience, I searched for a way to get bees on a clean, small cell broodnest without killing most of them in the process. OA was the best solution. 

My OA experience leads me to believe it's a great solution for just about everyone else also.

It's a shame such an effective, cheap, low risk, non-contaminating mite treatment is illegal, while the less effective, expensive, higher risk, contaminating everything treatments are so legal.

I can tell you this fact hasn't been lost on very many beekeepers who want healthy bees, a clean broodnest and uncontaminated hive products regardless of the size of their operations. And the result, if used properly, is better for all involved, including the consumer.

And I guess it gives the bee police something to do as well :>)))

The Adee press release focused on the OA and almost completely ignored the other almost legal stuff! Now that's a neat perspective. You can put a towel soaked with Mavrik in a hive. Naughty, naughty. But watch out! You'll get a fine for using OA! I think the fine says more about our bee laws and the bee police than it says about the Adees.

If that's all they found in Adee's hives. And ifAdees are the first they've caught and fined, the bee police haven't been looking very hard! For many beekeepers have been using alot of others things for decades.

And using legal products illegally as well. Ever open someone's hive and notice the brood combs smell exactly like the cardboard bulk pack Apistan comes in? Ever work for another large commercial beekeeper and discover one strip has been added to the broodnest each year and none of them ever removed, ever! 

How about brood combs so contaminated that out of two batches of 400 grafted cups, less than a dozen are accepted. And only two virgins emerged from the lot!

Maybe our bee police should be more involved with the administrative/legislative end of things. When v. mite resistance first appeared, they sure pushed the checkmite exemption through the mail. With hive beetles it was goldstar. Why not with the grease patty? Why not with OA? It's got much more research, and historical use than either fluvalinate or coumophos had. I don't remember one for menthol either, but I think menthol is exempted at any concentration(that's another story).

And as big a player as the Adee's are, if they wanted to use OA they could have done much to help make it legal.

End of Rant :>)))

Regards
Dennis
Thinking that if legal isn't working, I'd sure rather have a beekeeper doing illegal OA than all the other illegal possibilities!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--The Adee press release focused on the OA and almost completely ignored the other almost legal stuff! Now that's a neat perspective. You can put a towel soaked with Mavrik in a hive. Naughty, naughty. But watch out! You'll get a fine for using OA!--(DM)


Adee was also fined for using the pesticide fluvalinate in a manner not in accordance with the label.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> The Adee press release focused on the OA and 
> almost completely ignored the other almost 
> legal stuff! 

Well, they wanted to put the "best face" on it
that they could, so they painted themselves as
"victims of a slow approval process". The
problem with such an approach is, in my view,
that after a while, one begins to believe one's
own press releases, which spells doom for the
corporation as an entity.









> You can put a towel soaked with Mavrik in a 
> hive. Naughty, naughty. 

And ka-ching... pay the fine. They WERE fined
for using the Mavrik. I doubt if they would have
been fined for merely using OA alone (but I
could be wrong).

> But watch out! You'll get a fine for using OA! 
> I think the fine says more about our bee laws 
> and the bee police than it says about the Adees.

...which is exactly the impression that they
*wanted* to give to anyone reading their press 
release. Hogwash. They had a freakin' off-label 
pesticide (the Mavrik) in their hives, apparently
in June, when supers are on. Big screw up.
No excuse.

> Not entirely true. 

Don't argue with me, argue with the hundreds of
specialists who accept "regression to the mean"
as unavoidable.

> If short people are more likely to have short 
> offspring, then there won't be a "regression to 
> the mean.

But they aren't, so there always will be.









> Think of the Mbuti in Africa.

Read up on "insular dwarfism", and all will become
clear in regard to the Mbuti and other peoples
of short stature and high basal metabolism.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>The "going rate," as accepted by many biologists, for mutations in organisms is about 1 in 1 million. That seems insignificant, until you consider the numbers of organisms on the earth. How many queen bees are produced each year in the U.S.?

And what is the proportion of good mutations to bad ones? Very low I'm guessing- 1 in 1 million again? Then factor in the low likelihood that a "good" mutation- good in the sense that it doesn't immediately lead to death of the organism- is really good for the organism as opposed to just ho-hum? In other words, what are the chances that a "good" mutation as defined above actually results in a significant improvement in the organism? Again, I suspect, very low. I'm liking Michael Bush's perspective that "Waiting for "Evolution" to come up with something new, will be a VERY LONG wait."

Inducing mutations in honey bees like the intrepid orchid growers do is a good idea for a low-budget horror movie- oh wait! It's been done already









>How could all the genes for variation within a single species be present without new genes being added? Look at it either way. Through evolution, species are founded by limited numbers of individuals. Those few individuals could not possibly have had all the possible alleles for all possible traits that appear today.

"Sounds implausible" is a fine argument when I use it Kieck, but I'm calling you on it









I am however on thin-ice here because I just don't know the answer. Are you too? Are you aware of research or evidence that suggests that organisms started out with a limited set of essential genes and that all the genetic variation observed today is the result of evolution?

Sounds implausible to me









Random mutation just doesn't seem to explain the huge variation we see, or the common elements in different species. What are the chances of that happening through random mutation? I'm not trying to make an argument for intelligent design here. I would like to know who thought adding frog dna sequences to the human genome was a "good idea"


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--And ka-ching... pay the fine. They WERE fined
for using the Mavrik.--(JF)

You'll have to show me where they were fined for using "Mavrik".

They were fined for using fluvalinate in a manner not in accordance with the label instructions. EPA does not fine by trade name, which in this case includes the 75 or so percent inert ingredients found in a trade named product Mavrik. ONLY the active ingredient fluvalinate is of concern to the EPA.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I agree with the spirit of D. Murrell's post, if not all the details. Personally, I think OA could be a very good treatment option. I doubt it's as potentially harmful as fluvalinate or coumaphos, and it seems to be fairly effective.

Having said that, I still prefer management strategies that reduce mite populations before resorting to chemical treatments. And, no mistaking it, OA is a chemical treatment.

In line with this thread, too, OA is still an illegal pesticide in bee hives.

As other threads have indicated, OA can kill off hives quickly if applied incorrectly. That demonstrates OA isn't foolproof, it can damage bees, and it may be more hazardous than we imagine.

"And as big a player as the Adee's are, if they wanted to use OA they could have done much to help make it legal." -D. Murrell

Precisely.

And still could. In passing, I asked Richard Adee about OA (among other mite treatments) just over a year ago. He told me they use Apistan -- they hadn't encountered resistance problems, and Apistan works well. I wonder whether they were already using OA then, or if they just started. . . .

Actually, in that same conversation, Adee claimed Varroa weren't much of a problem for them any more. They were/are worried about small hive beetles, particularly if/when they bring SHB into South Dakota in their hives returning from almond pollination. He was especially concerned about methods of controling SHB in their honey processing facilities. When I discussed possible research efforts on controling Varroa, he brushed that aside, saying that research on controling SHB is far more important.

"Don't argue with me, argue with the hundreds of
specialists who accept "regression to the mean"
as unavoidable." -Jim Fischer

Hard to argue that "regression to the mean" is unavoidable. However, "regression to the mean" doesn't mean what you're suggesting it means. I recommend you look up "regression toward the mean," and see how it applies to sampling and statistics. It does not mean that populations will always return to an average.

"Read up on "insular dwarfism", and all will become
clear in regard to the Mbuti and other peoples
of short stature and high basal metabolism. " -Jim Fischer

Not following you. Are you suggesting that if you lower their metabolic rates, their children will fit the same averages for height as other groups of humans? How do you suppose they became shorter in the first place? Was it selection of some sort, or just a coincidence?

I realize Mbuti have higher basal metabolic rates, but we're not discussing what genetic traits might influence stature, just whether shorter humans might be more likely to shorter-than-average offspring.

""Sounds implausible" is a fine argument when I use it Kieck, but I'm calling you on it.







" -George Ferguson

Fair enough. How do you explain all the variation in animals today? The earth appeared with all the variation in all the animals as they are today?

Of course, if you've ever encountered a mutant that is "good," that's a new variation. By definition, mutations are changes -- so they add variation. If all the variation in all the animals has always existed, then mutations can not occur.

Research has been done on phylogenetic reconstruction. Systematists build phylogenies ("evolutionary trees"). To test how accurate some of these phylogenetic reconstructions are (opponents argue that phylogenies are poor guesses as to what may have happened), one group of systematists started with a single bacterial culture. Bacteria tend to mutate more rapidly than many other organisms; their rate of mutation can be as high as 1 in 1000. Expose them to mutagens (radiation, mutagenic chemicals, etc), and they can mutate even more rapidly. At each step, along their artificial evolution, these systematics preserved cultures of these bacteria.

The resulting array of bacterial forms was then given to another group of systematists who -- based on the variations among the cultures of bacteria -- attempted to create a phylogeny. Invariably, in experiments like this, the phylogenetic reconstructions are exact portrayals of the steps of evolution.

"Random mutation just doesn't seem to explain the huge variation we see, or the common elements in different species." -George Ferguson

Get rid of too many common elements, and "life" will cease. Biological processes tend to be similar by necessity across all forms of life.

Variation can be caused by environmental factors, as well as genetics. Grow two genetically identical plants in two different types of soil, and see how much they differ. Feed each member of a pair of identical twins a different diet, and see if their overall stature is affected. Put genetically identical bees on "small cell" comb and on "large cell" comb, and compare the two groups.

As far as random mutations affecting species, think of minor differences making the first split, then diverging more widely.

We see it with the races of honey bees. Races are precursors to species. Are Carniolans different from Italians? Are Apis mellifera scutellata different than A. m. mellifera? Now, take that a little farther -- isolate them until they become different enough that they can no longer interbreed, even when artificially brought together.

Keep in mind, too, that "species" are human constructs. All animals fall into a continuum, and humans divide that continuum into convenient "chunks" that we call "species."


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

I just heard that the Adees lost half of their bees so far. Not sure if that's rumor, or not. Anyone else hear this?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Whoa. Any way to confirm that rumor?

If they lost half their hives, they'd still be the biggest beekeeping operation in the country. Reminds me of the joke about Texas complaining to Alaska about Texas being the second largest state in the country and Alaska saying if they didn't stop whining, Alaska would split in half and make Texas third...


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Half their bees? I wonder if that's more than they typically lose over winter. Some beekeepers claim losses like that are pretty common.

I'm not Adees would be the biggest operation if they lost half their bees. Bell is very close in size, maybe larger depending on how things get figured, even when Adees have peak numbers of bees. A few other operations that I know of are smaller, but larger than half of Adee's size.

Going out on a limb here, if Adees unexpectedly lost a considerable number of hives like has been suggested, a fair number of almond pollination contracts should be available again.


----------



## ainsof (Dec 27, 2005)

Sorry to hear about your misfortune Addee. Pardon me while I rant:

Here we have yet another case of beaurocratic bull&#%$ artists sticking it to decent, hard working folk; all in the interest of lining their own (*@$#% &*@#$ pockets.

There is no bloody reason why these "Alphabet Soup" agencies can't take years of research and field testing by respected international trade partners (like Canada)and use it to approve remedies that are known to be effective.

Greed, I tell ya... greed and avarice... And I don't mean our local inspectors. It's the &$^%# upper admins and politicians.

This is NOT what our Founding Fathers had in mind for federal government.

Red Tape like this just steams me...


----------



## soupcan (Jan 2, 2005)

Was not aware the Horace Bell is still in the business


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> There is no bloody reason why these "Alphabet 
> Soup" agencies can't take years of research and
> field testing by respected international trade
> partners (like Canada)and use it to approve 
> remedies that are known to be effective.

While your feelings are both understandable and
reasonable, the OA approval effort is one of the
*first* times that the EPA has done exactly
what you wish they would do - the bulk of the data
to support the application is being taken as 
"a given" from the EU studies. The problem is 
that the EPA just can't stomach the idea of 
not doing some work here in the USA, even if the
work is somewhat trivial and nothing more than
a rehash of work already completed and published
elsewhere.

So, things _are_ a little better than you
might think. I don't think we will ever see the
EPA or FDA issue approvals based solely upon
work done outside the USA.

And it is not greed, as no one makes any money 
off the deal, and the dollars involved are 
small potatoes as compared to anything else 
elected folks might deal with.


----------



## florida pollinator (Jul 31, 2006)

Horace Bell has been out for a long time.


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

>>>> There is no bloody reason why these "Alphabet
> Soup" agencies can't take years of research and
> field testing by respected international trade
> partners (like Canada)and use it to approve
> remedies that are known to be effective.<<<<

One word, Thalidomide, is all the excuse they ever need.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

"One word, Thalidomide, is all the excuse they ever need."

iddee, you took the words right out of my mouth.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"Precisely. No serious breeder of anything that I know of is expecting to do anything BUT breed OUT something. You can't breed IN something that isn't already there."

Um - yes you can. You can purposefully mutate an organism and breed from there. Happens all the time in the plant world. You can also wait for a beneficial mutation and select from a large number of offspring, leopard geckos come to mind. Dairy cattle. There are zillions of examples of animals and plants whose mutations have been captured and preserved by man for our own purposes. Mutations/traits that did not exist in the past, but arose and were capitalized on. Corn is another good one.

Don't believe me? Wiener dogs. 

Keith

[ January 30, 2007, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

The purposeful introduction of mutations into the honeybee hasn't ever worked in honeybees so far as I am aware. Yes this strategy has been abundantly successful in plants and perhaps even a few animals, but all mutations save the cordovan trait and have proved harmful to our little friends. Some feel that trach mite resistance is a mutant gene, but I doubt it.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Interesting to hear that Horace Bell is out of business. I hadn't realized that. He's still listed among beekeepers offering blueberry pollination in some states, and I found this:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/03/28/m1a_honeybees_0328.html

It couldn't have been too long ago that he went out if he did. I didn't try calling to see what I'd find out.

". . . all mutations save the cordovan trait and have proved harmful to our little friends." -Aspera

I have to disagree with that. "All" have proved harmful? Such as?

I've read about Laidlaw keeping strains of bees with purple eyes, for example, which appeared as a mutation. Not necessarily "helpful," but not "harmful" either, apparently.

Besides, other than mutation, how do variations arise within species?


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

<Besides, other than mutation, how do variations arise within species?>

1) I said the purposeful (meaning by humans) introduction of mutations. This would include techniques such as chemical, radialogical mutagenesis or recombinant organisms (rice, tobacco, corn, tomatos, many others)
2) Genetic drift of isolated populations
3) Sympatric speciation (wheat, perhaps corn)

<I've read about Laidlaw keeping strains of bees with purple eyes, for example, which appeared as a mutation. Not necessarily "helpful," but not "harmful" either, apparently.>

I was not aware of this. I suppose that it could be a good genetic marker (like Cordovan)


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

"You can purposefully mutate an organism..."

I see you've been in my office.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"2) Genetic drift of isolated populations
3) Sympatric speciation (wheat, perhaps corn)" -Aspera

Both of these assume variation is present. How did those variation come about in the first place?

Purposeful mutations, so far as I've heard or read, are scarce in animals.

But what I took objection to was the statement that all mutations so far other than cordovan color in honey bees had proved harmful.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"How did those variation come about in the first place?"

Mutation. If anyone needs proof, please drop by coyote's office.

Keith


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Um - yes you can. You can purposefully mutate an organism and breed from there.--(KB)

--Don't believe me? Wiener dogs.--(KB)

Hello Keith!

Not sure I understand.

Werent wiener dogs purposely bred to hunt hole dwelling animals? That is, not from mutation but from selective breeding?

Arent mutations random events? I mean, can you mutate the genetics of a honeybee and expect to get a predetermined result such as hygienic behavior? Thanks!

[ January 31, 2007, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Although this is a bit off thread, I would like to comment that most animal breeding, including honeybees takes advantage of naturally occuring variation, rather then introducing (random or otherwise) mutations. The primary exception to this in the "knock-out" or "knock-in" recombinant animal which is not widely used in agriculture. Yes I'm familiar with Begian beef cattle, and Weiner dogs. You'll note that these animals frequently have poor health and suffer from lethal births and dibilatating back disease. Why was it that beekeepers have scoured the forrest of Russia, islands of Greece and deserts or Africa? Because they needed genetic diversity from which to select better bees. The best breeding selects whole populations for a desirable traits influenced by hundreds if not thousands of separate genes. In order to do this, one must have reasonable genetic diversity, not a handful of loss-of-function mutations.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

ainsof,

start rallying your mem!
Why are you waiting for everyone else to get on the horse? Start your campain now!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Here we have yet another case of beaurocratic bull&#%$ artists sticking it to decent, hard working folk;--(Af)

Well in this case, rightly so. Fluvalinate, in its approved use on honeybees is impregnated onto strips to minimize pesticide contamination of comb and food products. Fluvalinate applied as a wet agent onto paper towels can contaminate wax and honey and risk harm to the consumer.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"I just heard that the Adees lost half of their bees so far. Not sure if that's rumor, or not. Anyone else hear this?" -Michael Palmer

By chance, I asked Adees about it AND a story appeared in the local paper yesterday about Adees. The rumor was just a rumor. Adees have had no problems with "CCD" so far, and have not lost any more bees than usual.


----------

