# Any studies on multiple controls for Varroa



## knute (Mar 10, 2013)

I don't know that I would consider powdered sugar dusting a "chemical" treatment as much as a "mechanical" treatment. From what I understand, the fine powder makes the mites lose their footing, aided by the associated grooming from bees removing the sugar. I suppose any fine dust might work to a similar extent, but sugar has the advantage of being edible and easily removed by the bees.


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

I'll be watching this thread with interest.

Not a scientific study, but I have SBB (over solid boards because I am in a cold area) in all the time. I also sticky board every day of the year. And for long periods I counted every single mite that fell down and out of the hive. In no way could the passive loss of those mites have been any effective control on the overall population - at best, they are a tiny, tiny, sample.

For instance a hive which might be dropping, say, 8-10 mites per 24 hours, and could also have (just making up an example) an infestation rate of 2-3% on a sugar roll (using Randy Oliver's method of calculations, not the Sammataro/ NY BeeWellness/ONTechTeam calculation methods). If treated with OAV, you would commonly expect to see several hundreds (if not thousands) of dead mites on your sticky board about three days after the first treatment and then hundreds (though gradually declining) more after each of the successive vaporizations in the full 3- to 4- dose course of treatment. Therefore it's hard to imagine how removing less than a hundred per week would have any effect at all. 

Does the loss of _any_ number of viable, fertile mites benefit the hive - you bet! But I have always had SBB, and believe me, I still get mite levels that need suppression by active treatment.

The references I have seen about using SBB to _control_ varroa seems to me to fall into two categories: stuff written early on in the spread of the pest, and folk-wisdom that arose from that idea that is still hanging on. And maybe some wishful thinking, too. I may be wrong about this, but my recollection is that the only "academic" stuff I have read about using SBB as mite controls was in Extension publications from WVA (same place that was suggesting powdered sugar.) I think I happened on that using the Google. 

Perhaps you could email Larry Connor and ask him about the references too SBB/varroa control in his book, perhaps he can steer you to the relevant academic references. He's easy to reach at Wicwas Press.

Enj.


----------



## dkofoed (Feb 25, 2014)

enjambres said:


> I'll be watching this thread with interest.
> 
> But I have always had SBB, and believe me, I still get mite levels that need suppression by active treatment.
> 
> Enj.


Just curious - you mention you run SBB OVER solid bottom boards ... doesn't that defeat the purpose of the SBB? I believe the point is that the mites fall through and get lost in the grass (or ground well below) - however in your case they could easily crawl back up into the hive.

I don't run SBB myself, just an observation.


----------



## ruthiesbees (Aug 27, 2013)

dkofoed said:


> Just curious - you mention you run SBB OVER solid bottom boards ... doesn't that defeat the purpose of the SBB? I believe the point is that the mites fall through and get lost in the grass (or ground well below) - however in your case they could easily crawl back up into the hive.
> 
> I don't run SBB myself, just an observation.


I run all my topbar hives with a closed screened bottom board. The first year, I used the oil on the IPM board. I didn't care for the hydrocarbon smell next to the beehive. Then I switched to diatomaceous earth on the bottom board instead of the oil. It has the added benefit of trapping and killing the small hive beetles so now I have virtually no issue with them. And any mites that fall through should also die. They use DE dust on chickens to kill the mites. You just have to be careful that no bees get into the DE or it will suffocate them too.

I'm curious what other scientific references there might be out there on varroa controls. I didn't treat for mites at all last year. I only used a brood break at the end of June. My plan is to use powdered sugar on the hives weekly or biweekly. I pull each frame out and dust it separately, unlike the book that says sprinkle 1/4 cup over each frame and brush it between the frames. I have little ghost bees for a couple of hours before they clean each other up. I also spritz them with anise oil water when I work them. WVA had a study on the effects of different essential oils. Anise oil was somewhere in the middle of the lineup. I can no longer find that study on the web. I really use it instead of smoke, but I wonder if it also makes the bees groom each other. They do tend to go nuts over the stuff, and I also add a few drops to their thin syrup feed in the summer/fall.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Andrew Dewey said:


> Is there a study that talks about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the various non-chemical techniques? The ones that come to mind are brood breaks and screened bottom boards. I'm interested in both their effectiveness as stand alone controls and in combination.
> 
> I know there are lots of folks on this forum who report adequate control through a combination of genetics and no chemical controls. Anecdotal evidence like this often leads to research. I'm wondering if this has happened and I've managed to miss it?
> 
> Let's leave aside the small cell debate. I consider powdered sugar dusting - although about as innocuous as a substance can get - as a chemical control.


Hi Andrew,

The problem is this sort of management, unless accompanied by genetic management, tends to lead to a worsening problem.

Unless that's made clear in each post 'non-reatment beekeeping' tends to come to be seen as a non-genetic management approach. And that's the last thing it needs. We need bees that can take care of mites themselves, and beekeepers who understand that there are routes to achieving that - and that unless used extremely carefully, mechanical controls tenmd to defeat that aim just as much as chemical controls.

For that reason in my view this conversation should be held elsewhere than the tf forum.

That's just my view.

Mike (UK)


----------



## erikebrown (Oct 27, 2014)

Andrew Dewey said:


> Is there a study that talks about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the various non-chemical techniques? The ones that come to mind are brood breaks and screened bottom boards. I'm interested in both their effectiveness as stand alone controls and in combination.


I'm interested in this topic as well. Lots of off-topic replies here about powdered sugar and how this may not belong in the TF forum. The OP was asking about non-chemical techniques, and even said he thought powdered sugar was a treatment, so I think it is appropriate for this space.

Anyone able to answer the original question?

Thanks,

Erik


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

@Mike - you'll get no disagreement from me that genetics are the ultimate answer. But where I was asking about controls - not treatments - this forum seems like the friendliest place to ask my questions. Until bees able to coexist with Varroa and able to deal with all other parasites/diseases are commonly available commercially, I think there is value in discussing non-chemical controls.

It is similar to getting people to test for Varroa - you can tell them all day long that presuming they need to treat or apply a control is counter to IPM. But what good does it do to tell them how to do an Ether Roll if they are not going to use it? Perhaps they'll do a sugar shake, maybe they will count mites on a sticky board. An Ether Roll? Not going to happen! The question becomes more of how do we get someone to do what I/We want, and less what the ideal solution is.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Andrew Dewey said:


> @Mike - you'll get no disagreement from me that genetics are the ultimate answer. But where I was asking about controls - not treatments - this forum seems like the friendliest place to ask my questions. Until bees able to coexist with Varroa and able to deal with all other parasites/diseases are commonly available commercially, I think there is value in discussing non-chemical controls.


I think you're absolutely right Andrew. But the line between 'control' and 'treatment' is not at all clear to me. It seems to me they are interchangeable terms. Both 'control'. Both 'treat' a varroa problem. Distingushing between them on grounds of mechanical vs chemical seems to me to be a device that allow some people to treat without thinking they're treating. Or to feel happy about doing non-chemical beekeeping. 

But in terms of how much they help or hinder bees from adapting to the problem of varroa, they're identical. 

And since the tf forum understands that adaptation is the only solution we have, talk about varroa control doesn't sit easily here - imho. It does sit perfectly well in the orthodox dept.

(BTW bees that can thrive without chemical treatments are commercially available. Whether you can run these - or any other bee that has ever existed - as successfully under modern commercial conditions is another matter)



Andrew Dewey said:


> It is similar to getting people to test for Varroa - you can tell them all day long that presuming they need to treat or apply a control is counter to IPM. But what good does it do to tell them how to do an Ether Roll if they are not going to use it? Perhaps they'll do a sugar shake, maybe they will count mites on a sticky board. An Ether Roll? Not going to happen! The question becomes more of how do we get someone to do what I/We want, and less what the ideal solution is.


Again, all that is talk about treating. And this is the tf forum. Imho it simply doesn't have an application here - even as analogy. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

Control versus Treatment? Some commercially available stocks that report to have survived without treatments have died completely when I've tried them in my area, primarily from Varroa. There has been some press coverage (largely if not exclusively by Kim Flottum of Bee Culture) that some stocks such as the Russians seem to survive ok with a reduced level of treatments. That in my opinion is a very good thing - a step in the right direction - especially for those of us who are in areas where for whatever reason a breeding program is not practical. What I'm looking for now are the combined controls that will allow me to keep those stocks without reaching for a synthetic.

My location is in the middle of an area that gets heavy migratory pollination during mid-May to mid-June. There is no way I can tell my bees who they can mate with and as some of the pollinators are Africanized and I understand that African drones generally out compete European drones when it comes to mating, I'm even less compelled to try "rolling my own." Instead I rely on the advancements in genetics that others have made. Perhaps I should think of my location as a proving ground.

There is a difference between what Mike is talking about and what is generally thought of as "Organic." As someone who teaches new beekeepers who on occasion want to keep bees organically, the current state of the art in my area is the genetics/controls combination. I need to remember that these folks don't have unlimited budgets, and that if not immediately successful may restart once but generally not twice. Beekeeping is an intriguing potential hobby for them.

{Mini-rant: USDA Organic has very little to do with what was meant by 'Organic' as used by the pioneers of the Organic gardening revolution. Some of the stuff allowed under USDA Organic makes me cringe. As this forum is called 'Treatment Free', I see it as the place on Bee Source to discuss strategies for avoiding Treatments.}

While Mike's assertion that "bees that can thrive without chemical treatments are commercially available" may be technically true - they are not widely available and often come at a significant price premium to conventional bees. I was researching packages yesterday - conventional 3lb packages are about $110 this spring. Treatment free bees came in at $150 for the same sized package! And availability was not wide spread.

Maybe there is a legitimate debate that needs to take place over controls versus treatments. My preference is to have a large contingent working in the general direction of natural sustainability (i.e. genetics).


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I checked out beeweaver a while back and their queen prices seemed reasonable. Packages & nucs were dearer though. But for the situation you describe Andrew queens are all you need.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Andrew Dewey said:


> Control versus Treatment? [...] What I'm looking for now are the combined controls that will allow me to keep those stocks without reaching for a synthetic.
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> ...


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

Thanks Oldtimer for the BeeWeaver suggestion. Unfortunately, I've already tried them.

There may be a situation with BeeWeaver and other treatment free commercial operations, where economic reasons cause stock to be sold before it is truly ready. Or as some say: "not ready for Prime Time!"

And Mike, we seem to be disagreeing over tactics. For what it is worth Control and Treatment are well defined terms I expect you to know and understand. Your comments on this and other threads place you at the extreme end of TF beekeeping. That is not a bad thing. It just goes to show that the expression all beekeeping is local doesn't merely refer to geography. 

However, when you say things like "And it doesn't suit our needs", that asserts an ownership of the forum which I don't think you're entitled to.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Andrew Dewey said:


> And Mike, we seem to be disagreeing over tactics. For what it is worth Control and Treatment are well defined terms I expect you to know and understand.


Its often -usually even - the case that terms are arrived at in a way that suits the needs of particular parties. What I'm saying here is that this way of using these terms doesn't suit conversations about the needs of tf beekeepers well. 

QUOTE=Andrew Dewey;1250269]
Your comments on this and other threads place you at the extreme end of TF beekeeping. That is not a bad thing. It just goes to show that the expression all beekeeping is local doesn't merely refer to geography.[/quote]

Extreme Andrew? What's extreme about working to raise resistance? Surely that's standard husbandry for the aspiring tf beekeeper? 



Andrew Dewey said:


> However, when you say things like "And it doesn't suit our needs", that asserts an ownership of the forum which I don't think you're entitled to.


Me neither  That's why I also said 'in my view' and suchlike from time to time!

My point, to reiterate is: 'controlling' varroa, whether by chemical, organic, or mechanical methods, does nothing whatsoever to help the single thing all tf beekeepers seek; that is: adaptation. 

Having discussions about the different ways of controlling varroa in that context is out of place, because it obscures that central, important, fact. It would be perfectly at home elsewhere on beesource.

I don't expect you to agree with that Andrew. I'm just putting it out there in the hope that it helps Beesource, and particularly the tf section, better understand a potential danger to the cause of adaptation.

Mike (UK)


----------



## erikebrown (Oct 27, 2014)

I think it's worth pointing that feral hives surviving in the wild seem to use what we call "controls" quite regularly. I saw a talk by Tom Seeley in Pennsylvania recently, and he present studies of feral bees living in the Arnot Forest near Ithaca, NY. He found they coexist with mites, and contrasted the feral bees with managed hives. The following key differences were noted:

1. Smaller Hives - average size was around a single deep Lang. This resulted in more frequent swarming and the accompanying break in the brood cycle.

2. Hive Spacing - hives were around 0.5 miles apart, which basically eliminated drifting and robbing, likely reducing transfer of diseases and mites.

3. Nest Structure - curiously, cell size averaged 5.3 mm, so smaller cells did not play a part. However, the feral hives used a lot of propolis, and Seeley theorized that this may play a role in combating mites and disease.

4. Genetics - big differences with nearby managed hives, as you might expect. He also had samples from the 1970's so was able to trace the bees lineage before and after varroa. Basically, the bees suffered a big loss in diversity, from roughly 15 queen lines in the 1970's to only a couple lines in the current bees.

I apologize that I don't have a study to point you to, it was at the Chester County Beekeeping Conference, and I only have my notes.

Bottom line, IMHO, is that it might make sense to adopt some of these controls (smaller hive area, more spacing, artificial swarms) as part of our own mite management efforts. Conversely, using good bee stock but not adopting such controls could make it more difficult for the bees to flourish.

Erik


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

erikebrown said:


> 1. Smaller Hives - average size was around a single deep Lang. This resulted in more frequent swarming and the accompanying break in the brood cycle.


I've often felt Seeley too willing to draw conclusions that suit his own theories. For example here it might that was the available nest site size. Tree cavities (which I imagine are the only nest sites) are probably generally quite small. It might be that larger cavities would make for larger colonies.



erikebrown said:


> 2. Hive Spacing - hives were around 0.5 miles apart, which basically eliminated drifting and robbing, likely reducing transfer of diseases and mites.


This makes sense, but does the forest forage support more colonies?



erikebrown said:


> 4. Genetics - big differences with nearby managed hives, as you might expect. He also had samples from the 1970's so was able to trace the bees lineage before and after varroa. Basically, the bees suffered a big loss in diversity, from roughly 15 queen lines in the 1970's to only a couple lines in the current bees.


Another example of parallel populations, indicating separated mating. 



erikebrown said:


> Bottom line, IMHO, is that it might make sense to adopt some of these controls (smaller hive area, more spacing, artificial swarms) as part of our own mite management efforts. Conversely, using good bee stock but not adopting such controls could make it more difficult for the bees to flourish.
> Erik


The problem is adopting such features will, all else being equal, tend to remove the adaptive pressure that is needed to overcome them - and thus flourish fully. People have kept bees at high densities for thousands of years. It isn't problematic most of the time as long as you follow the rules of husbandry. Those same rules fix things for you when there are occasional problems. 

What we want is bees that manage mites themselves. We can help them get there - there are well known and well understood paths. Managing their mites for them just increases their dependency on us. That's our number one problem - beekeepers have made bees beekeeper addicted.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I checked out beeweaver a while back and their queen prices seemed reasonable.

Those are US dollars...


----------



## erikebrown (Oct 27, 2014)

mike bispham said:


> I've often felt Seeley too willing to draw conclusions that suit his own theories. For example here it might that was the available nest site size. Tree cavities (which I imagine are the only nest sites) are probably generally quite small. It might be that larger cavities would make for larger colonies.


I haven't seen that from Seeley, but each to his own. In this case, Seeley ran a one-year study with 24 hives - 12 in one deep, 12 in triple deeps. After a year with no treatments or manipulations 80% of the one-deep hives were still alive, while 80% of the triple deeps were dead. Not a multi-year study but still supports the original theory.

On your note about parallel populations, not in this case. The area studied is isolated without any managed hives nearby. So the feral bees have only themselves to mate with.



mike bispham said:


> The problem is adopting such features will, all else being equal, tend to remove the adaptive pressure that is needed to overcome them - and thus flourish fully. People have kept bees at high densities for thousands of years. It isn't problematic most of the time as long as you follow the rules of husbandry. Those same rules fix things for you when there are occasional problems.


Perhaps, not sure I agree. If an environmental factor (like frequent swarming) is a key aspect of a species survival, then this won't be true. Part of husbandry, in my opinion, is creating an optimal environment for the animal you are tending. Looking at what the same or similar animals do in the wild seems like a reasonable approach. Plenty of animals need the proper environment conditions and factors to survive, not just bees.

Erik


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

erikebrown said:


> On your note about parallel populations, not in this case. The area studied is isolated without any managed hives nearby. So the feral bees have only themselves to mate with.


I'm not sure I follow your previous then Erik:

"4. Genetics - big differences with nearby managed hives, as you might expect."

That 'nearby' not so nearby?


erikebrown said:


> Perhaps, not sure I agree. If an environmental factor (like frequent swarming) is a key aspect of a species survival, then this won't be true. Part of husbandry, in my opinion, is creating an optimal environment for the animal you are tending.


I agree - with special attention paid to the processes of selection. Sub-optimal genetic reproduction process will lead straight to ill health/beekeeper dependence. 



erikebrown said:


> Looking at what the same or similar animals do in the wild seems like a reasonable approach. Plenty of animals need the proper environment conditions and factors to survive, not just bees.
> Erik


I agree completely with the natural studies. I'm not sure about the next statement. It seems tautologous. Surely all animals need the 'proper' conditions to survive. But what does that mean? Presumably a modern pig farm supplies 'proper conditions'. 

In the case of bees we have less genetic control because of open mating. And that works both ways. If we mollycoddle our bees, we downgrade, and perhaps destroy local feral bees. That might not matter to some, but it matters to me.

You may well be right about swarming. Perhaps expecting bees to occupy the same nest indefinately, with 3 or 4 year successions, is asking for something unnatural, or only possible under near ideal conditions not always met. Have you seen the (1950's?) British documentaries about the East German bee farm that kept hundreds of skeps, allowing them to swarm (perhaps most years?), but netting the primes and collecting the casts for use the following year and for sale. It struck me as a sustainable and close to natural system, and the very high density didn't seem to be a problem. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## erikebrown (Oct 27, 2014)

Mike, sorry for the confusion on the "nearby hives" statement. The forest is isolated, there is a single beekeeper outside the forest with managed hives, but too far away to practically mate with the feral population. Still, Seeley did the work to show that the feral genetics were quite different and could not be the result of cast-off swarms that happened to survive for short periods within the forest.

Thanks for the discussion,

Erik


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

erikebrown said:


> Mike, sorry for the confusion on the "nearby hives" statement. The forest is isolated, there is a single beekeeper outside the forest with managed hives, but too far away to practically mate with the feral population. Still, Seeley did the work to show that the feral genetics were quite different and could not be the result of cast-off swarms that happened to survive for short periods within the forest.
> 
> Thanks for the discussion,
> 
> Erik


Interesting, thanks Erik


----------

