# fumigillin: how vital?



## coondogger

The temperatures are now dipping into the thirties at night and the forties to low fifties during the day. On sunny days my bees are still active. I'm still giving them syrup and although their appetite for it has lessened, they're still taking it. My question is, is it too late to mix in some fumigillin, and how dire is it if I skip it until the spring when I begin feeding them again?


----------



## Dave W

Now, in NH, I would think any bees taking syrup are just "feeding" and not "storing".

Do your bees now have, or will they get Nosema during this winter?


----------



## coondogger

Dave W said:


> Now, in NH, I would think any bees taking syrup are just "feeding" and not "storing".
> 
> Do your bees now have, or will they get Nosema during this winter?


I don't know. This is a new colony, just started in May. They've been fairly healthy so far, no mites, no nosema (as far as I can tell). They've been strong enough to produce a modest harvest back in October, despite being a brand new colony. So should I let well enough alone, and wait until spring to treat them with any medication?


----------



## WVbeekeeper

send off a sample and have them tested.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=7472


----------



## coondogger

WVbeekeeper said:


> send off a sample and have them tested.
> http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=7472


They require at least 100 bees. I don't have that many dead bees. This morning was quite cold; about 30 degrees. There were around a dozen dead bees on the landing strip. That's not unusual though.


----------



## Dale Hodges

*******, Bees get Nosema from being "cooped " up for long periods of time (one of the main reasons), and not being able to fly and defacate. You know what kind of weather you have in your area better than anyone. If your bees go long periods not being able to fly you need to medicate. They supposely store a small amount and medicate all winter. I'm a FL boy, but we even see it here some years.


----------



## Oldbee

"They require at least 100 bees. I don't have that many dead bees." c..dogger. SORRY ! but you are going to have to make them "dead" by collecting some bees [live] from the combs into a jar of alcohol. That's what I read from the "usda.gov" site anyway. I have only three hives and have "medicated" with fumagilin for 3 years now but only in the fall. So far, I have NOT had any problems with nosema. Some on Beesource will boast/brag about how they have NEVER used Fumagilin-B and their bees do fine; they often "keep" their bees in milder climates. From my reading of ABJ and Bee Culture magazines it is often recomended that one use Fumagilin. "how dire is it if I skip it until spring when I begin feeding them again". Not too "DIRE". If it happens [Nosema] it happens.


----------



## coondogger

OK, there seems to be a consensus that I should probably medicate. But is it too late in the season? What criteria may be used to determine if it's still possible to medicate?


----------



## Oldbee

Nosema is one of the least of "worries" for beekeepers compared to the "mites" and SHB, [So that I have read; Beesource and others. New Hampshire I think would be TOO LATE to treat for nosema because it will be too cold for the bees to take up the syrup in the near future [weather]. Don't worry, your bees [hive] will be fine.


----------



## Michael Bush

>fumigillin: how vital?

Well, I've never used it in 33 years. I guess I don't think it's that "vital".


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Well, I've never used it in 33 years. 
> I guess I don't think it's that "vital".

So, Mike you have 33 years of records that support a contention
that you've never had a case of nosema? That's pretty amazing.
No, it's impossible.

I hate to disagree with Mike, but nosema has been everywhere this
year, and while the symptoms can go unnoticed, the primary
symptom of a low-level case is that the hives just do not "thrive". 

So, if you've ever looked at photos of hives where the bees are
"boiling over the edges the moment one removes covers and
said to yourself "I wish my hives looked like that", then odds are
you are one of the many who really do want to consider learning
how to test and treat for Nosema, or send a sample in to one
of the labs for testing.

Nosema has been the biggest unrecognized problem in beekeeping
for years. Those who have ignored the ongoing findings and 
advice of people like Dr. Eric Mussen in California have been part
of the problem, allowing the nosema problem to spread so widely.

Now that bees from 2002 - 2007 have been tested and found to
have had IAPV well before any symptoms even close to CCD had
been noticed, guess what is left as the "prime suspect" of being
the pathogen "behind" CCD?

Yep, Nosema. But this is not some new claim. If you look at the 
data published in the September "Science" paper about "CCD", 
you can see that hives that had both Nosema apis AND Nosema
ceranae were doomed to die from CCD, while hives with only
one kind of Nosema or the other were not.

So, yes - many beekeepers have ignored Nosema, or lacked the
attention span to look for it with a $20 plastic microscope, and
certainly may have never noticed. But I wouldn't expect them
to notice the difference, as they simply may have never seen
a truly robust colony.

All the bees need to eat is a gallon of syrup, so one just
might be able to treat this late in the season.


----------



## WVbeekeeper

I had to make some dead bees for the samples I sent. I took a frame of capped brood and shook the bees into a large pot, making sure not tho get the queen. After the bees were in the pot, I tapped it on the ground to get the bee into a pile near one side. Then I scooped them into a 1/2 cup measuring cup and bagged them in a ziplock. After I got all my most had already suffocated so it wasn't hard to then add the alcohol. I got my results back on the 1rst of the month. If I had nosema I would have some medication on them now. In ten years of keeping bees I've never seen any symptoms of nosema, but I wanted to be sure this year so I sent some samples. As long as your bees will take the syrup, you can medicate them. Two gallons of syrup in the fall is recommended. 

http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Mussen/beebriefs/Nosema_Disease.pdf

http://www.betterbee.com/products.asp?dept=1518


----------



## tecumseh

ditto (can I say that here?) mr fischer comments...

w va bee keeper sezs:
If I had nosema I would have some medication on them now. In ten years of keeping bees I've never seen any symptoms of nosema.

tecumseh replies:
I think mr fischer's point is that you likely will not see any direct evidence of nosema and sometimes it is difficult to impossible to recognize that hives are poor doers when ALL your hives are poor doers.


----------



## MichaelW

You can feed them now and it should OK. Or wait for a warm spell. I've feed bees and had them flying in December. I don't know what your weather is like, but here we always have some warm enough days throughout the winter. Condensation or leaky feeders is the only real problem feeding in winter (here anyway). What kind of feeders do you have?

I'll be putting on Fumadil on around thanksgiving on some of my hives. Just can't find the time to till then.

As for Nosema, I've heard about people getting seriously burned around here for not treating with Fumadil. From what I understand the only reason we haven't been included in states with CCD is from confirmation of Nosema or starvation in the deadouts.

Many say that the biggest problem in beekeeping is Nosema, not Varroa. I say the biggest problem is people not paying attention their hives and not paying attention to good, proven information.


----------



## Michael Bush

>>Well, I've never used it in 33 years. I guess I don't think it's that "vital". (complete quote, not snipped)

>So, Mike you have 33 years of records that support a contention
that you've never had a case of nosema? That's pretty amazing.
No, it's impossible.

Hmmm. Amazing what you can read into things. Did you read what I said at all? It's pretty short and to the point and I have never made any such contention in the aforementioned statement or any other statement. For someone who claims to be "scientific" in your approach, you really should try reading ONLY what's there and not what you imagined was there. It would greatly simplify and improve conversations with you.

I made only two points:

1) That *I* have never used it.
2) That *I* don't think it's vital.

If you wish to argue either one of those two points, which I actually *DID* say, rather than the one you invented me saying, I would point out that only I would know the answer to either of those issues so there is no reason to have that discussion

But back to how "vital" it is, at the beginners field day last year Dr. Ellis said he's seldom seen Nosema around this part of the country and he did not recommend treating for it. It's possible he may change that stand now that we have Nosema ceranae in this country but so far what I've heard him say about that is that treating with Fumigillan is done at a time when Nosema ceranae spores are at the thier lowest as they peak in the summer when you can't treat without getting it in the honey.


----------



## WVbeekeeper

tecumseh said:


> ditto (can I say that here?) mr fischer comments...
> 
> w va bee keeper sezs:
> If I had nosema I would have some medication on them now. In ten years of keeping bees I've never seen any symptoms of nosema.
> 
> tecumseh replies:
> I think mr fischer's point is that you likely will not see any direct evidence of nosema and sometimes it is difficult to impossible to recognize that hives are poor doers when ALL your hives are poor doers.


 Tecumseh, I don't think you read the entire post or maybe not even the post before that where I gave the link for where to send the sample. If you had, you would realize that I agree that it is not easily detected and gave detailed instructions how to gather a sample of bees to send for testing. 
I agree that his point is that it is not easily detected. I usually agree with almost everything he posts (except in tailgater which I try to stay away from). There are some things you should always look for though. Like the pictures of the fecal stains on the front of hives that I've seen, slow spring build up (which can be from other factors), disjointed or K wings (could also be TM).
Now MY point is that in ten years I've never treated for nosema because I've never seen the symptoms. This year I sent samples out to have some piece of mind about it. Not one sample came back positive for nosema. If any of my bees had ever had nosema would it have went away on its own without treatment or do you think it would still be in my bees?
Instead of chopping up my sentences into fragments of what they were, you should quote the whole sentence and look at it that way. It totlly changes the meaning. Like this;



WVbeekeeper said:


> In ten years of keeping bees I've never seen any symptoms of nosema, but I wanted to be sure this year so I sent some samples.


Now doesn't it make more sense that I agree about it being hard to detect when you use the WHOLE sentence?


----------



## tecumseh

really didn't mean to send the message that I was in some way disagreeing with what ya' said w va beekeeper. and yes I did read your entire post. a large apology is in order for snipping your sentence. sorry about that. 

I was trying to reinforce the idea that a hive may well have nosema without showing those brown stains, which a lot of beekeeper think is 'the' indicator of nosema. at least in much of the southern us of a lot a hives may well have nosema, but because flying time is not limited the 'brown stain' will never be evident. 

hopefully the idea of comparing poor doers to poor doers should be self evident. as mr fischer suggested... some of us don't have microscopes, wouldn't know how to use the thing or even know what we were looking for in regards to nosema. it is good that you did the testing thing and most definitely thanks for that link. mind telling us what the service cost? 

the fact that a great number of the ccd hives have tested positive for nosema should clue in every beekeeper that nosema is a concern that we ALL need to sharpen our skills on... although I have never fed fumigillin myself it is something that I have been seriously considering.


----------



## peggjam

My inspector pulled samples at my request, an sent them to Beltsville, didn't cost me a dime.

When we pulled samples, we pulled from more than one hive in the same sample, but marked the sample and the hives that were in each sample, so if we got a positive, I would know which ones needed to be delt with. We did this during the summer, so I had the results well before treatment time, something to think about.


----------



## tecumseh

as to my question about cost w va beekeeper... I see by your link that the service is free.


----------



## WVbeekeeper

tecumseh, yes it's free. they had my results back in about a week after i sent the samples. this would have given me time to medicate. i don't treat my bees but if i had nosema i'd have to treat for that. from what i've read, no bees are resistant to it but it will have different effects on bees of varying genetics. some bees can have it and have no ill physiological effects and won't change their behaviors, in which case you will never know by simply looking at them or for fecal staining. other strains can have it and have there insides tore up from it and will change behaviors, like foraging (and dying) at an earlier age. bees are not able to deal with nosema and get rid of it themselves, can have it and still perform well or not, and may or may not show signs of infection. i'd recommend everyone to send some samples out. i wonder how many people treat with fumigilin and don't need to or don't treat when they should.


----------



## tecumseh

there is a lot of good information on that usda/ars site. I snipped this little jem and totally unrelated to nosema or fumigil but what the heck...

'Our research has shown that reducing relative humidity below 50% where honey is stored will inhibit SHB eggs from hatching and thus reduce or eliminate larval damage in honey.'


----------



## Jim Fischer

> 1) That *I* have never used it.
> 2) That *I* don't think it's vital.

Dodge and weave, and duck and dance all you want. 

Barry edited my specific questions, one can only
assume in an attempt to assist with all the dodging
and weaving, so I'll put it back:

Your new statements indicate that either:

a) You have seen symptoms of nosema, but ignored it.

b) You have seen nosema, but have tried something
other than fumagillin.

The first would be cruel, and the second would be
either "interesting" or "puzzling".

Or you tried something else? How'd that go?

And how did you test/examine your bees to assure
yourself that your approach worked?

I know you dislike addressing "the details", but I'd like to 
hear how folks are dealing with it, and beekeeping is
nothing *but* eleventy-seven thousand, two hundred
and ninety-twelve details to be juggled with style.

Here's a photo of what one finds if one samples bees, and
looks at liquified bee guts on even a cheap microscope:
http://bee-quick.com/ccd/latent_nosema.jpg
...and that's from colonies showing *no signs at all of any disease*.

The really interesting thing about nosema, which despite claims to the
contrary, is at near epidemic levels in the US this year, is that nosema
showed up in nearly every single colony sampled and tested as a part 
of the work that resulted in the "CCD" Paper in "Science", and those 
colonies that had _*both*_ Nosema apis and Nosema ceranae were,
in nearly every case, suffering from CCD.

Call me crazy, but I'm still sticking with my call of the shot, which is
that what seems to be killing colonies here is the two flavors of
Nosema, as I mentioned at the end of this article from Oct 2007:
http://bee-quick.com/reprints/reads.pdf

...and this just in...
Turns out that when the USDA looked at samples of bees from 2002
through 2007, they found that Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV)
was detectable in bees from as early as 2002, well before anyone
had any symptoms that might have been called "unusual" or "CCD",
this completely refuting the over-hyped and well-publicized claims
that IAPV had some sort of connection to CCD, and heavy-handed
implications that IAPV causes CCD.
Details here, before it is printed in the Dec 07 _Bee Culture:_
http://bee-quick.com/reprints/claims_collapse.pdf

So, "vital"? You decide.
But it seems to me that one is making a larger wager than one might think.


----------



## WVbeekeeper

Jim Fischer said:


> ...and this just in...
> Turns out that when the USDA looked at samples of bees from 2002
> through 2007, they found that Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV)
> was detectable in bees from as early as 2002, well before anyone
> had any symptoms that might have been called "unusual" or "CCD",
> this completely refuting the over-hyped and well-publicized claims
> that IAPV had some sort of connection to CCD, and heavy-handed
> implications that IAPV causes CCD.


Jim, did they find any case of both strains of nosema in any samples collected during this period? Have you looked into that? If they found both strains from samples you might have to rethink your theory. Just because they found it in samples from CCD colonies last year doesn't mean that it was not occurring before then. If they did find both in samples, according to your theory beekeepers would have been experienced CCD before last fall. Just a thought. I know you most likely have the means to find out unless you've already looked into this scenario.


----------



## tecumseh

w va beekeeper sezs (and pardon the snip):
Just because they found it in samples from CCD colonies last year doesn't mean that it was not occurring before then. If they did find both in samples, according to your theory beekeepers would have been experienced CCD before last fall.

tecumseh replies:
I think(?????) the usda site you highlighted stated that there was a 'smaller' ccd like episode prior to 2006 (2002 springs to mind).

is mr fischer suggesting (I am referring to his last paragraph) that ccd is singular in cause? or iapv is not in any (none, nada, zip) connected with ccd? or?????


----------



## Oldbee

In any case, this is one beepeeper [me] who is going to think more seriously about sending in a sample to be checked. I haven't done that before because I have only three hives as a hobbyist and didn't see the necessity to "bother" a lab just for that, Lol. [I should get my old microscope fixed]. Thanks WVbeekeeper. Is there a "best" time of year to send a sample for a more accurate/usefull reading? 

On fumagillin: I did notice from a site that it is recommended to feed the syrup with fumagillin at the end if feeding to build stores, so that the concentration isn't diluted.


----------



## Barry

Jim Fischer said:


> and beekeeping is
> nothing *but* eleventy-seven thousand, two hundred
> and ninety-twelve details to be juggled with style.


Yes, there are those that see beekeeping as this. Others, like myself, step back from juggling and let the bees do that 90 percent of the time. After all, they've managed to do it 100 percent of the time for thousands of years.

- Barry


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Jim Fischer;273265
The really interesting thing about nosema said:


> *both*[/I] Nosema apis and Nosema ceranae were,
> in nearly every case, suffering from CCD.
> 
> Call me crazy, .



Well Jim I can agree with you on this one, I only call you crazy some of the times. 

I little thymol in the syrup ott to do the trick.


----------



## Mabe

Goodness, gracious....it's amusing to see you fellers nit picking each other. 

Mabe


----------



## sqkcrk

coondogger said:


> no nosema (as far as I can tell). QUOTE]
> 
> As far as I can tell doesn't tell you anything. According to folks here at the ESHPA Meeting there may be no telltale signs and when there are it's probably too late.
> 
> 
> Next year have your Apiary Inspector sample your hive or hives and get a lab analysis.


----------



## Barry

Jim Fischer said:


> The really interesting thing about nosema, which despite claims to the contrary, is at near epidemic levels in the US this year, is that nosema
> showed up in nearly every single colony sampled and tested as a part
> of the work that resulted in the "CCD" Paper in "Science", and those
> colonies that had _*both*_ Nosema apis and Nosema ceranae were,
> in nearly every case, suffering from CCD.


Does anyone have a number that represents, of the colonies tested for CCD, the percentages of commercial (500+) verses hobby? My understanding (could be wrong) is that most colonies showing CCD are commercial, or very close to commercial hives.

- Barry


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Jim, did they find any case of both strains of nosema in any 
> samples collected during this period?

They didn't even look!!
I expect that they will subject these older samples to a full analysis later,
but they are disinclined to look at nosema just now, as they have their
hands full trying to defend their original speculative conclusions in light 
of this new contradictory evidence, don't they? 

The team that published both the initial paper and the defacto
retraction dismissed nosema out of hand early in the process.
Once they heard about a "new virus" from another team, 
they jumped to the conclusion that the virus was the sole and 
proximate cause, and rushed out a paper to be "first". And yes,
I was there, they phoo-phooed the initial report of a new virus,
but then turned around and both refused to give anyone any
of the samples collected for "the group", and rushed out the
paper that they should now admit was too hasty. Talk about 
instant Karma! (As yet, they haven't made any admissions at 
all, which is the amusing part. They are digging themselves
what appears to be a deeper hole.)

> Does anyone have a number that represents, of the colonies tested 
> for CCD, the percentages of commercial (500+) verses hobby? 

I'll answer, if you can restrain yourself from editing the reply.
Samples have been sent in by many many hobby beekeepers
who self-reported all of the classic symptoms of CCD.
Screening of their samples shows about the same mix of
pathogens as cited in the paper, except for the fungal growths.
The fungal growths initially cited by the Penn State team as
being of grave concern seem to me to be an artifact of the
"metagenomic" approach, were whole bees are processed.
If one processes dissected bee organs, one finds no fungal 
growths IN these bees, contrasting with the findings at
Penn State with intitial samples that were dissected and
examined via visual means, which could mean:

a) That the fungal growths were external, on the bees' hairs.
b) That the fungal problem is a separate issue
c) That both (a) and (b) are true

And since there has been so many utterly bogus claims 
made, let me stress that some of the hobby beekeepers 
and larger operations reporting CCD _have_ described 
themselves as "organic", and reports from "organic" 
beekeepers were among the earliest to be made. There 
are also well-known non-migratory operations in locations 
far from the migratory routes that have been hit by CCD. 
Names will not be released at this time, as each person 
has a right to privacy, and to admit you were hit by CCD 
could result in both lost pollination contracts, and a much 
higher cost of "borrowed hives" from other beekeepers, 
if not simple embarrassment for those who might have been
a bit too vocal in smugly disparaging anyone not keeping
bees exactly the way they do.

(Yes, hives are "rented" to round out what is required to 
meet a specific contract need. It happens all the time.)

So, any hope that one could cling to blaming the victim for
"poor management" or "unnatural practices" is long past
dashed, and well into "stomped upon with muddy boots".

I'll say it again. CCD is, at its core, seemingly able to
spread between hives _*just like a disease.*_ People have 
gone out to a yard every day and watched the tangible
symptoms spread. 

But the specific samples discussed in the September "Science" paper
were all collected from "operations" rather than hobby beekeepers.
The paper says as much, and I clarified in my articles the breakdown
between operations, yards, and hives, as the paper used the term
"samples" and "hives" without defining how many samples per hive, yard, 
or operation.


----------



## Barry

Jim Fischer said:


> There
> are also well-known non-migratory operations in locations
> far from the migratory routes that have been hit by CCD.
> Names will not be released at this time, as each person
> has a right to privacy, and to admit you were hit by CCD
> could result in both lost pollination contracts, and a much
> higher cost of "borrowed hives" from other beekeepers,
> if not simple embarrassment for those who might have been
> a bit too vocal in smugly disparaging anyone not keeping
> bees exactly the way they do.


Kind of a convenient wall to hide behind, those claiming CCD? Anyway, there doesn't need to be disclosure of names, but there does need to be disclosure of the numbers I asked for. Are you saying this is published somewhere or just your take on the matter?

- Barry


----------



## Jim Fischer

> is mr fischer suggesting (I am referring to his last paragraph) that 
> ccd is singular in cause? 

I think everyone is saying that this cannot be the result of
a single pathogen alone. But I don't see any problem with
a virus causing behavioral problems. Look at rabies, for example.
Talk about "behavioral changes"! I do admit that it is more *LIKELY
*that we don't have a single-factor problem here.

The point here is that other factors (lets just call them "modern life") 
are suspected of "weakening" the bees and making them more "susceptible",
even though bees have almost no "immune system robustness" at all.
Being social insects, they keep their environment within a very
narrow range of conditions, which means that the hive itself can be
thought of as an "immune system" of sorts. But the bee genome 
was a surprise in that bees really don't have much immunity to
things that other insects have.

> or iapv is not in any (none, nada, zip) connected with ccd? or?????

Couple of things here:

First, I have to watch what I say, or people will stop telling me things
that they'd rather did not get repeated, and certainly will stop 
listening to me.

2nd, IAPV did NOT result in CCD in Israel, nor has it resulted in CCD
in Australia, if one can trust the limited number of bees tested from
Australia as not having been contaminated when being handled.

"Contaminated" was exactly the cause of the much-ballyhooed reports 
that "Neanderthals were closer to modern humans than thought".
You can read this for the entertaining story of how a crack team
of genetics experts published a paper about discovering the DNA
of a lab tech down the hall.
http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0030175&ct=1

Note that this was the _*other *_example of using "metagenomics" to look
at an issue of "general interest", and it also seems to need retraction.
In my book, that about wraps it up for "metagenomics" as a reliable
approach to getting results of value.

But it could be that IAPV has nothing to do with CCD, and that it
is nothing but an opportunist that spreads and exploits bees
that are suffering from CCD.

My point here is that I don't know, and anyone who claimed they
did is now reviewing recipes for crow.

But my gut instinct is that the spread of this thing is too fast and
too furious to be anything OTHER than a virus.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Next year have your Apiary Inspector sample your hive or 
> hives and get a lab analysis.

Or, go buy a $20 kid's microscope and start looking at your
own bee guts. It is no more complicated than "science lab"
in Junior High School.

I think Randy Oliver said that he is doing an article on the 
process of testing for Nosema for either ABJ or Bee Culture 
soon, so he may have some step-by-step, with photos.
He's good at that sort of thing.

> Kind of a convenient wall to hide behind, those claiming CCD? 

OK Barry, you wanna challenge my veracity?
Fine. Here's a "prediction". People with names you know will
likely "come clean" after specific lab work is done to verify
what everyone suspects. You should start looking up recipes 
for crow now, as it will be on the menu for you. Note my
words, make this a "sticky", whatever, but you chose to
call my veracity into question in public, so I'll call you out.
So, put up or shut up, what's your wager? 

But don't ask me to violate confidences, and don't ask anyone
else to violate confidences. Not gonna happen. 

> Anyway, there doesn't need to be disclosure of names, but 
> there does need to be disclosure of the numbers I asked for. 

You'd have to ask Jerry Bromenshank (U MT) for counts, as
he has the data under tight wraps so as to not create any
opportunity for names to be named. And I don't see any
"need" for counts, other than for your personal entertainment.
The numbers are sufficient to prompt the USDA to scrape up
$4 million for more work on CCD, so that tends to indicate to
me that the numbers are not insignificant, and that the
uninformed denials that CCD is anything but both widespread 
and serious are "uninformed".

> Are you saying this is published somewhere or just your take 
> on the matter?

I'm saying that the data I've seen, and the data that those
who trade e-mails with me have seen are what I am talking
about. To write an article like the one I just finished for the
December _Bee Culture_ takes a lot of back-and-forth with
the researchers. They know full well that they are going to
get a pie in the face at the end of the process, so they 
try hard to "sell" their findings as valid, even conservative.
I'd guess that Jay Evans and I have traded 30 e-mails
total about his and Judy's very short paper, just to nail down
"where I stand" versus "where Jay & Judy stand".

So, "my take on the matter" is based upon quite a bit of
interaction with the eyeballs that eyeball the samples and
the data, even if the actual data is not copied to me
until sometimes months after the papers are published.

I used to be able to just be "a fan" or a "cheerleader" for
"bee science", but this CCD thing has forced me to act
as an opera critic of sorts, 'cause most beekeepers aren't 
watching the action, don't speak the language being used, 
and don't understand what is happening both on stage, and
behind the scenes.

...and the plot KEEPS thickening!


----------



## Keith Jarrett

[QUOTE=Jim Fischer;273332
>I think Randy Oliver said that he is doing an article on the 
process of testing for Nosema for either ABJ or Bee Culture 
soon, so he may have some step-by-step, with photos.
He's good at that sort of thing.

Yes, Blender then scope. Will let Randy O take it from there.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Jim,

I will contiune to STATE........ Mites, Nutrition, Nosema ( MNN )

Now for those that saw the 60 minutes tape, did you see that nice brood comb??

Like I have said many times on this form, there will be no smoking gun.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Your new statements indicate that either:

What new statements? I quoted my previous statement. I made no new statements. Again you are rewriting what I said. Perhaps my "new statments" are the once quoting an esteemed Dr. of entomology saying that it's not a problem in this part of the country? But you will continue to ignore that.

>a) You have seen symptoms of nosema, but ignored it.

I did not say anything about it, but no, I have NOT seen symptoms of Nosema. Ever. And, no I have not examined them or kept records. But apparently I'm not entitled to my opinion unless I have a careful scientific records to back it up. Am I claiming they have never had Nosema? No. I'm claiming nothing of the sort. I'm made two, count them, TWO statements. I will not bother to restate them for the third time as you couldn't read them on the first two installments, so there seems no point in repeating them.

>b) You have seen nosema, but have tried something
other than fumagillin.

I did not say anything about what I've tried, or not tried, but I have never used anything for Nosema.

>The first would be cruel, and the second would be
either "interesting" or "puzzling".

You apparently didn't read what I said that Dr. Ellis said. Since he has hardly ever seen it around here either it doesn't seem that unlikely that I wouldn't either.

>Or you tried something else? How'd that go?

I've tried nothing. I think I've stated my "treatment" program often enough before that you'd have to be pretty dense not to know what it is.

>And how did you test/examine your bees to assure
yourself that your approach worked?

I did not say that I examined them and I have not examined them.

>I know you dislike addressing "the details"

Actually I often address the details which you promptly ignore or rewrite to fit your view of what you THINK I've just said so it does seem like a total waste of effort.

>So, "vital"? You decide.

I did.


----------



## Jim Fischer

*Sigh* Looks like I need to drag this out again:
http://www.bee-quick.com/FordGuys_dilemma.jpg

Regardless, Mike - so you were _trying_ to say was:

1) You've never tested for Nosema.

2) You have it on what you think as good authority
that there isn't much Nosema in Nebraska.

So for that reason, you don't think it is "vital", and
you not only intone it as if it were universal fact
to a person from Bow NH, but you _just don't take
the hint_ when I offer a gentle hint.

Well, here's a less subtle clue - NH and VT have problems 
with Nosema. Always have. I lived in NH from 6th grade
through the start of college, and Dad lived there for a 
total of 30 years. We both keep bees. Connect the dots.

Sometimes, the "discussion" ends up containing false, misleading,
and mistaken opinions that appear to present actual hazard to the 
health of bees belonging of the trusting souls who ask simple and 
direct questions. This is one of those cases. Making it out
to be any sort of "personal thing" is a problem that is unique
to specific egos.


----------



## tecumseh

well I guess I am clueless (most time's I prefer it that way) about your link mr fischer. and what ever happened to fordguy (I kind of liked the guy and was quite certain that god would forgive him for being a lawyer).

so what's that about?

and I can't say I would much disagree with keith jarret horse back gestimate of the problem, although I would likely add iapv to the list.... plus genetics.

although I cannot document the incident I witnessed at least one (possible two) cases of iapv here this past summer. I took samples but did not KNOW what to tell the lab to test for... actually at that point iapv wasn't even on the short list of possible causes that I had considered. I add genetics to the list in that I also know that certain lines of bees (associated with II queens for rearing queens) has been shown to not so robust in their tolerance to some virus(s).

I think I need to price out some fumidil and go lookin' today at my local flea market for a microscope.


----------



## Hillside

So, when considering those dead-out hives that seemed to re-infect with CCD when bees were added back to the hive, it would be interesting to see what would happen if those repopulated hives were treated for nosema. Would they still re-infect? It would be interesting to see.


----------



## tecumseh

well hillside my instinct (for certainly I was operating on NO information) at the time was to melt 'er down in a big hot water tub. until I can determine a better strategy it will likely continue to be my preferred option. for some reason restocking sounds like a slightly worse bet than throwing dice in vegas.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Regardless, Mike - so you were trying to say was:

There you go again. Trying to tell me what I'm trying to say and trying to say what I implied by what I said...

Amazing.

Why not just read what I said and assume that was exactly what I meant? It's really not that hard.


----------



## Jim Fischer

Well, for someone who lives in NH, the experience of someone
who keeps bees in Nebraska is somewhat less than "universal truth".

To a guy in NH, where Nosema is common, the "advice",
offered posed a clear and tangible threat to the survival
of his hives, by suggesting complacency in the face of
what may turn out to be the year that everyone learns
just how much nosema we have.

I've tried several times to put the most charitable interpretation
I could on your suggestion, but you use each opportunity to
rethink/restate your position to merely insult.


----------



## Michael Bush

Jim, I offered no advice in this thread so I really don't understand how you can disagree with it. I have not stated any disagreement with any position you have made in regards to treating Nosema. Other than my, quite simple, original statements, I have merely pointed out that you keep saying I said things I did not or that I meant things that I did not. Please share what you think of Nosema and treating it. I am always happy to hear what you have to say on beekeeping matters.


----------



## tecumseh

beyond the he said, she said banter mr fischer and mr bush I think it is undeniable that: 
1)nosema is pretty widespread over the us of a,
2) often time the impact of nosema may be significant (bioliogically and economically) and never be evident or obvious, 
3) only in those places where nosema is evident to the point of being catastrophic do beekeeper recognize the disease and interact with it in some form or fashion, and
4)some cultural practice may actually help disguise or blurr the total effect of nosema which translate into a low prioritization by the beekeeper in regards to attending to this problem.

and finally since we are on a board where the largest audiences are beginner and new bees with little to no experience it would be relevant to suggest that there are some things in regards to managing bees that you cannot recognize directly. ignoring the problem (denial is easy but ineffective) will not make it disappear (although this strategy will quite likely make your bees disappear).

my two centavos...


----------



## Hillside

> restocking sounds like a slightly worse bet than throwing dice in vegas.


I don't necessarily disagree with you on that, but I was approaching the idea as a test. IF nosema is a significant part of the cause of the disease (which sounds plausible), and if nosema is reliably treatable, then restocking along with treatment could be somewhat of a test. Maybe not a definitive test, but interesting and worthwhile.


----------



## tecumseh

sounds quite doable to me hillside.


----------



## Michael Bush

Nosema opinion.

There is much info on Nosema as far as the details. I recommend MAARC or other sites for details of what the symptoms are, what it looks like under a microscope etc. I will not repeat all of that here as that information is commonly available.

But since there has been so much speculation and inference on what I advise as far as using Fumidil (or Fumagillan) for Nosema. I will clarify my view:

The first issue you need to decide, is what your philosophy of life is as well as your philosophy of beekeeping.

A lot of decisions on equipment or methods or treatments, depend on your personal philosophy of life and your personal philosophy of beekeeping. Some people have more faith in Nature or the Creator to work things out. Some are more interested in keeping their bees healthy with chemicals and treatments. You'll have to decide where you stand on these kinds of things.


Organic

If you're the type to take an herbal remedy before you run to the doctor, you probably fall into this category. True organic would be no treatments whatsoever. Some will say this can't be done, but there are many people including me doing it. Many are online and help each other through it. After that there are "soft" treatments like essential oils and FGMO, and then slightly "harder" treatments like Formic Acid and Oxalic acid for Varroa.


Chemical

If you're the type who runs to the doctor for antibiotics the second you get a sniffle this is probably more your style. Some in this group treat for prevention. IMO the wiser ones treat only when necessary. Most of the recent research shows that treating for prevention has caused resistance to the chemicals on the part of the pests and has done little to help the hive and often hurt them. Chemical buildup in the wax from Cumaphos (Check Mite) and Fluvalinate (Apistan) used for Varroa mites, is suspected to be the cause of high supersedure rates, and known to be the cause of infertility in drones and queens. Fortunately as far as Nosema, it has not built up resistance to Fumidil.

Science vs Art

If you see beekeeping as an art or you see it as a science it will change your perspective a lot. I think it's a bit of both, but since bees are quite capable of surviving on their own and since we really can't coerce them into doing anything, I see it as more of an art where you work with the bees natural tendencies to help them and yourself. Some won't believe anything until it's been proven in a scientific study. Some will go with their own observations. 

Scale

This is another thing that changes your philosophy on many things. When you have time to spend with the hives and the hives are in your backyard, then methods that require you to do something every week are not a big problem. For instance, when I requeen in my own yard, I don't mind if it takes three trips to the hive to get it done if that improves acceptance. But if it's at an outyard 60 miles away, I want to do something one time and be done. The same is true of the number of hives. If you have only two hives to deal with on a certain issue, you may not mind how complicated it is. When you have hundreds of hives to deal with, you have to have a streamlined system.

Reasons for beekeeping

A lot of your decisions will be guided by this. If you have bees as pets you have a different agenda than if you have them solely to make a living. Some are somewhere in between.

================================

Assuming you have decided where you fit in the realm of beekeeping
philosophy we can proceed to some branches in your decision on what to
do about Nosema. If you are of the Chemical/Scientific philosophy you
should see instructions on how to use Fumidil or Fumagillin. Advice on
this is available on the bottle as well as most beekeeping web sites
such as MAARC etc. At this point you've made up your mind and should
skip the rest of what I have to say as it will be addressed to those of
a different mindset and will only offend your view of the world.


----------



## Michael Bush

If you are still reading I assume you have at least a small interest in the organic side of beekeeping or at least trying to avoid the use of chemicals and antibiotics in your hives. That or you just want to find something to disagree with. If you want to get a grasp of how necessary it is to give preventative treatments for Nosema, I will point out a few things that may help clarify this for you. First, realize that many beekeepers have never treated for it, including me. Not only are there many beekeepers who don't want to put antibiotics in their hives, but in fact many beekeepers in the world are prohibited from using Fumidil by law. I am certainly not the only person who thinks it's a bad idea to put Fumidil in your hive. The European Union has banned it's use in beekeeping. So we know they aren't using it legally anyway.

http://www.apimondia.org/apiacta/articles/2003/multinelli_1.pdf

So why would you want to avoid Fumidil?

Just how dangerous is Fumidil to your hive? It's hard to say exactly, but of all the chemicals people put in hives, it's probably one of the least dangerous. It does break down quickly. It doesn't appear to have a lot of downsides on the surface anyway. But if you're of the Organic kind of philosophy you're still thinking, why do I want to add antibiotics to my hive? I certainly don't want it in my honey and, in my view, anything that goes in the hive can end up in the honey. Bees move things all the time. Every book I've seen on comb honey talks about the bees moving honey from the brood chamber up to the comb honey supers during a cut-down split. Having an area of the hive that is the only part there when chemicals are applied is a nice idea, but it's a lot like a no-peeing section in a swimming pool.

What do antibiotics do to the natural balance of a natural system? Experience with antibiotics would say that they upset the natural flora of any system. They kill off a lot of things that perhaps should be there along with what shouldn't leaving a vacuum to be filled by whatever can flourish. Probiotics have become a big thing in people and horses and other animals now, mostly because we use antibiotics all the time and upset the normal flora of our digestive system. Are there beneficial microorganisms living in bees and beehives? Are they affected by Fumidil? Yes, it's unscientific of me to assume there are without some study to support it, but my experience says all natural systems are very complex all the way down to the microscopic level. I don't want to risk upsetting that balance.

Propping up weak bees.

Yes, those with the Scientific philosophy will find that statement offensive. But I know of no better way to say it. Creating a system of keeping bees that is held together by antibiotics and pesticides that perpetuate bees that cannot live without constant intervention, is, in my organic view of beekeeping, counterproductive. We just continue to breed bees who can't live without us. Perhaps some people get some satisfaction of being needed by their bees. I don't know. But I would prefer to have bees who can and do take care of themselves.

What other non-organic practices may contribute to Nosema?

While the non-organic group tends to want to believe that feeding sugar instead of leaving honey will prevent Nosema, I have seen no evidence of this. Honey may have more solids and may cause more dysentery, but while dysentery is a symptom of Nosema, it is neither the cause nor is it evidence of Nosema. In other words, just because they have dysentery does not mean they have Nosema. Many of the Honey Bee's enemies, such as Nosema, Chalkbrood, EFB, and Varroa all thrive and reproduce better at the pH of sugar syrup and don't reproduce well at the pH of honey. This, however, seems to be universally ignored in the beekeeping world. The prevailing theory on how Oxalic acid trickling works is that the bee's hemolymph becomes too acidic for the Varroa and they die, while the bees do not. So how is it helpful to feed the bees something that has a pH in the range that most of their enemies, including Nosema, thrive, rather than leave them honey that is in the pH range where most of their enemies fail?

The bottom line is this. You have to make up your mind what your risks are. What you are willing to put in your hives and therefore into your honey. How you want to keep bees. How much you trust a natural system or how much you want to strive for "better living through chemistry"

I made up my mind in 1974 not to use any chemicals for Nosema. I have not regretted the decision.


----------



## MichaelW

Well that speaks for itself. 

Here's my philosophy.

I don't like to watch things in my care die. I've had enough bees and other animals die due in part to management practices. Yes death is nature, but so is nurturing. But I'm also into organic and sustainable agriculture, so I take the IPM approach. Go with the least impact on the environment while remaining "economically" viable, which is really about nurturing something to the point it can grow and thrive as its own living thing. Watching one hive succumbing to Nosema this spring, since I didn't treat either, while at the same time hearing about big, big losses in our area due to Nosema didn't set well with me.

But, I say to the readers of this thread, do what you want. The genetics will be better if you raise your own queens from survivors after a nosema outbreak or the best performers with low level infections, but I don't have the scale to do that, nor the control over my drone pool. If you buy queens somewhere else, or don't have much control of your drone pool, your wasting your time and bees letting them die or simply not thrive from nosema.


----------



## Jim Fischer

I'll limit myself to addressing only the items that
are clearly not factually correct.

> Just how dangerous is Fumidil to your hive?
> It's hard to say exactly

No, it is very easy to say.
It is not even a little bit dangerous.
The only danger it poses is to the Nosema.
It is a very specific item, and not at all similar to a broad-sprectrum
antibiotics of the sort that Mike apparently thinks it is.

> Experience with antibiotics would say that they upset the natural flora
> of any system. They kill off a lot of things that perhaps should be there
> along with what shouldn't leaving a vacuum to be filled by whatever
> can flourish.

This might be a valid concern for a wide-spectrum antibiotic being used
in a creature like a human, which uses "Beneficial Microorganisms" to
aid in things like digestion, but bees are different. They use enzymes.
There are no "Beneficial Microorganisms" helping bees. This is basic
bee biology, so this sort of misleading comparison can be said to be
not just "misinformed", but "completely wrong".

So if there is a microorganism in a bee, that's a problem for the bee.

> Propping up weak bees.

If Mike's approach to beekeeping is let every hive that gets Nosema
(or perhaps shows any other sign of weakness) die, perhaps there's
someone who lives near Mike and has a less "laissez-faire" approach
to beekeeping who would like to adopt those bees rather than have
them die. (_With love and a little care [some might call it "beekeeping"],
these bees can be given the chance to live full and productive,
perhaps even happy, lives that God intended them to live...
...send your dollars now to "Save The Bees".._.)

As there is no Nosema-resistant stock out there, any illusion that one
might cling to about about somehow having "nosema resistant stock"
as a result of letting hives die would be self-delusion. In fact, one
must kill the nosema spores that would remain on the comb (Acetic
acid seems to be the current favorite) if one wants to re-use combs
from a hive that died from Nosema, so letting Nosema get out of hand
can wipe out not just a hive, but multiple hives in the same yard
as a result of robbing, and multiple colonies put on the infected
woodenware.

> Having an area of the hive that is the only part there when chemicals
> are applied is a nice idea, but it's a lot like a no-peeing section in a
> swimming pool.

Mike made a funny!

The suggested time to feed Fumadill is in early spring, when the
bees are eating up a storm to raise brood, draw comb, and
otherwise ramp up the hive for spring. As fast as bees take feed
during this period, it is (ahem) highly unlikely that any feed would
remain unconsumed, or any feed would even be stored for more
than a few hours. Of course, Mike says he does not feed his bees
either, so he may not be aware of the rapid rate of consumption
of "artificial nectar" in early spring by a colony that is being fed
well in advance of any blooms.

> What other non-organic practices may contribute to Nosema?

Nosema is a bee disease that was here long before we started
keeping bees, and will still be here long after we are safely and
cozily dead. Back when all beekeeping could have been described
as "organic" it was a problem, so while it may make some
beekeepers feel smugly justified in adopting a holier-than-thou
stance thinking that "non-organic practices" are the root of all evil,
this is wishful thinking. To suggest that one set of practices or
another (other than neglecting to sample and test for it) might
somehow contribute to Nosema is misleading in the extreme.

> "While the non-organic group tends to want to believe that feeding
> sugar instead of leaving honey will prevent Nosema,

No one informed thinks this, it is dysentery that is avoided by
feeding pure feed, free of indigestible components, like sugar syrup.
The "non-organic" group would be more likely to not make this error,
and they would tend to know a bit more about diseases, as they
tend to do more than simply let hives die from them.

And while we are on the subject, calling one's honey "organic"
without following the USDA "National Organic Program" rules
is a violation of federal law, and carries steep fines. Ditto
for calling one's "growing methods" organic.

> Many of the Honey Bee's enemies, such as Nosema, Chalkbrood, EFB,
> and Varroa all thrive and reproduce better at the pH of sugar syrup
> and don't reproduce well at the pH of honey.

But if this made any difference, the beekeepers who fed honey would
have less incidence of these specific problems. They don't, so it
doesn't.

> This, however, seems to be universally ignored in the beekeeping world.

And with good reason, if one thinks it through slowly enough.
Let's walk though it together, shall we?

For the *brood diseases*, the difference appears to be a moot point, given
that bees convert the feed or the honey to a consistent brood food
product with a consistent pH before feeding it to brood, thus eliminating
the problem as it applies to the brood diseases. Bees process both
honey and sugar into brood food, and several powerful enzymes
assure a consistent result regardless of the mix of glucose and
fructose in the nectar, sugar, or honey. If the enzymes did not do this,
bees might have a difficult time raising brood on citrus honey, which
has more glucose, versus clover honey, which has less.

For *Nosema* (in the bee) the bee's digestive system breaks both honey
and sucrose down into the simple sugars long before is gets anywhere
where Nosema might form, so the bee's digestive tract sees no difference.
(Your digestive system can likewise see no difference between sugar,
honey, and a potato, as all are complex carbs.)

* Varroa*? They don't really hang out in cells where honey or sugar
syrup would be stored, do they? No, they hang out in cells full
of the above-mentioned brood food with that consistent pH.

That just about sums it up for why the difference in pH is
"universally ignored in the beekeeping world". It is ignored because
the difference really just doesn't matter, except in the case of
overwintering, when sugar syrup wins hands down for being 100%
digestible.

> The prevailing theory on how Oxalic acid trickling works is that the
> bee's hemolymph becomes too acidic for the Varroa and they die,
> while the bees do not. So how is it helpful to feed the bees something
> that has a pH in the range that most of their enemies...

No, that's an inference that is absolutely wrong.
The bee will digest the carbohydrates. The pH of the bee's hemolymph
will not change as a result of consuming one type of feed or another,
any more than your blood will change in pH as a result of eating sugar
one hour, and honey the next. You also digest carbohydrates.

Reminds me of this summer, when wasps were going into and out of
a can of soda on a picnic table. I laughed my head off. You see,
it was DIET soda. No sugar at all. Stupid wasps.


----------



## WVbeekeeper

Jim Fischer> Of course, Mike says he does not feed his bees
either, so he may not be aware of the rapid rate of consumption
of "artificial nectar" in early spring by a colony that is being fed
well in advance of any blooms.

Actually I have read on his website and his recent posts that he has been feeding his bees this year as well as last year due to their inability to produce a surplus for him or much less enough for themselves for winter. He already has sugar on some of them, mostly nucs.
http://208.69.121.208/forums/showthread.php?t=214401
"Personally I don't feed if there is a nectar flow. Gathering nectar is what bees do. They should be encouraged to do it. I will feed in the spring if they are light, as they will not rear brood without sufficient stores to do it with. I will feed in the fall if they are light, but I always try to make sure I don't take too much honey and leave them light. Some years, though, the fall flow fails and they are on the verge of starvation if I don't feed. When queen rearing, during a dearth, I sometimes have to feed to get them to make cells and to get the queens to fly out and mate."
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfeeding.htm#when

In some of his posts he has attributed the lack of stores to drought or a poor fall flow, but could it be possible that his bees don't live to full life expectancy due to not having a diagnosis for nosema by not having his bees tested and not properly eliminating the problem by medicating? We all know or should know you can have nosema without any obvious symptoms and if you do have it your bees can die without gathering the amount of nectar they could otherwise when they are healthy and you may not get the surplus you were banking on.

By MB's own admission on this very thread; "I did not say anything about it, but no, I have NOT seen symptoms of Nosema. Ever. And, no I have not examined them or kept records."
MB, I highly respect you as a beekeeper but with all your knowledge I can't understand why you've never had your bees tested for nosema. Maybe it's time to have them examined and treat them if you need to. You might get some of that honey you've been missing out on the last two years. I don't like to treat either but I will treat for nosema should I ever have a positive test for it.

MB>I certainly don't want it (fumagillin) in my honey and, in my view, anything that goes in the hive can end up in the honey.

If you treat in the fall when you have no honey supers above your brood chamber how can the antibodies get into those supers next year? Will the bees move the honey up into the supers when you put them on in the spring? Do they do this to make room for brood in the brood chamber? It is doubtful seeing how it takes approximately one frame of honey and one frame of pollen to raise one frame of brood and I've never had it happen. You can see how a colony will quickly go through stores when they are in full swing during the spring build up. As Jim pointed out, any syrup with medication fed in the fall or early spring will be used for brood rearing and has hardly no chance of ending up in your honey. I've always seen nectar collected and put in the supers then cured to honey to be moved down as needed, not up. Maybe the reason you don't want to treat for nosema is because you're harvesting honey from the brood chambers, though I doubt it, which could be another reason you've needed to feed your bees the last two years. I know it's hard to change your techniques when you're set in your ways and have had relevant success, but sometimes change can be a good thing and I'm always up for suggestions on how to improve the quality of my bees and their performance and keep an open mind.


----------



## tecumseh

thank ya' mr fischer for the clarification in regards to any number of dangling questions...

as for myself (and in partial reference to the two michael prior post about beekeeper philisophy) my approach is somewhere down the middle. which mean I would rather (and it is definitely less expensive) to just let the bees do their thing, but when I recognize a problem I will make every effort to assist (nurture) the bees in the best way possible. 

if I determine that there is a partial genetic link to the problem then I simply don't utilize those individual hives for replication (ie I treat and use these for busting up and making nucs in the spring and early summer months)... as I have suggested elsewhere culling is a CRITICAL component of the selection process that is oftentime paritally to totally ignored. which mean that we use the word selection but the other side of the question (ie culling) is quite likely more important part of the process.


----------



## JBJ

Wow, what a rancor. Has anybody out there tried to buy Fumagillan lately? I looked into it a few weeks ago and supplies were sold out everywhere well into November in any appreciable quantities.

With all this HUB BUB I think some may have missed Kieth Jarret's gem about thymol in syrup. There are some encouraging results being achieved in eliminating Nosema with this material. There are also some anecdotal reports from some reliable resources that HoneyBHealthy also helps control Nosema.

"They use enzymes. There are no "Beneficial Microorganisms" helping bees. This is basic bee biology, so this sort of misleading comparison can be said to be not just "misinformed", but "completely wrong".
So if there is a microorganism in a bee, that's a problem for the bee." Jim Fischer

Jim I would have to strongly disagree with that statement. There are many known bacteria that inhabit bee bread and the bee gut that are not associated with disease and generally considered harmless or beneficial. Many of the enzymes found in bee bread are the result of the actions of these bacteria. 

I will make a prediction that with Nosema reclassified as a microsporidian we will begin to see new materials and practices developed or "re-discovered" (thymol) for its control.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> There are many known bacteria that inhabit bee bread and the bee gut 
> that are not associated with disease and generally considered harmless 

OK, name 'em.
If they are commonly found, which I question, they certainly are not acting 
in the same manner as the beneficial bacteria found in humans, and their 
loss will not harm the bee. (Mike was telling a story of antibiotics that
was true for humans, untrue for bees.)

> or beneficial. 

OK, you REALLY gotta name them if you wanna call them "beneficial".

> Many of the enzymes found in bee bread are the result of the actions 
> of these bacteria.

That's interesting because bee's don't DIGEST anything and then
regurgitate it to make bee bread, so those enzymes would be
where, exactly? Not in the "gut" of the bee.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Has anybody out there tried to buy Fumagillan lately? 
> I looked into it a few weeks ago and supplies were sold out 
> everywhere well into November in any appreciable quantities.

Gee, could it be that other beekeepers heeded the warnings
of their state apiarists and the researchers?

Well, if nothing else, it is a pretty strong endorsement for the
advisability of paying attention to Nosema.


----------



## JBJ

*Response for Jim*

It has been found that honeybees live longer on pollen removed from combs than on trap collected. This could be due to the three genera of bacterial flora found so far in stored beebread: Pseudamonas, Lactobacillus, and Saccharomyces. This study was done in 1966. This is From the hive and the Honeybee, granted a very old citation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6978848.stm

"The scientists' trawl revealed a diverse cargo even in healthy colonies. Eight types of bacteria appeared to be present in all bees, suggesting they perform some function useful to their hosts."

I would have to dig a little deeper, somewhere I filed the actual names of these bacteria. The impression I am left with is that there is definitely a microbial ecology going in the hive and in the bees themselves.

Lactic acid fermentation caused by bacteria and yeasts are thought to be responsible for the conversion of pollen to bee bread---Dr Clarence Collison, Nov Bee Culture

If bees did not have any relationships with beneficial microorganisms would make them the exception to most living things in my humble opinion. 

How about supporting your statement that there are no beneficial microorganisms helping bees? 

Just trying to learn here, not wanting to get anybodies hackles up.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

JBJ said:


> With all this HUB BUB I think some may have missed Kieth Jarret's gem about thymol in syrup. There are some encouraging results being achieved in eliminating Nosema with this material. There are also some anecdotal reports from some reliable resources that HoneyBHealthy also helps control Nosema.
> 
> STOP...
> 
> We have a winner!
> 
> Way to go John.... Sorry Jim no prizes for second place.


----------



## Gene Weitzel

*Questions for Jim & MB*

Here is a link on Nosema that I found that seems to indicate that fumigillin may not be as effective as some would think.

http://www.algonet.se/~beeman/research/nosema.htm

A statement from the source:
"The antibiotic Fumagillin kills the active stages of Nosema, but not the spores, and it's effect diminish over time. Experiments show that even when fumagillin is administered both in the autumn and spring, infection levels might still be harmful. Wintering bees on clean or disinfected combs are therefor advisable with or without medication."

They seem to advocate that the wintering of bees on clean, disinfected comb is of more importance (comb can be easily disinfected by fumigating with acetic acid, a process that should be fairly acceptable even to those who advocate natural/organic methods since acetic acid is generally accepted as an "organic" substance).

I would be interested in both your comments regarding this approach. Jim, since you seem to have done a lot of study regarding Nosema, can you provide any evidence that fumigating with acetic acid is as effective on the spores of Nosema ceranae as it is for Nosema apis?


----------



## Gene Weitzel

Keith Jarrett said:


> JBJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all this HUB BUB I think some may have missed Kieth Jarret's gem about thymol in syrup. There are some encouraging results being achieved in eliminating Nosema with this material. There are also some anecdotal reports from some reliable resources that HoneyBHealthy also helps control Nosema.
> 
> STOP...
> 
> We have a winner!
> 
> Way to go John.... Sorry Jim no prizes for second place.
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting fact about thymol, it has been used in bookbinding to kill mold spores by sealing up books with mold damage in bags with thymol crystals before rebinding them. Since Nosema is very closely related to molds (fungi) it may be that it acts in a similar way. I can't see that it could act in the way that fumigilln does (it is an inhibitor of microsporidian methionine amino peptidase type 2 or MetAP2) on an active infection but by reducing the spores it would help to inhibit transmission of the infection to newly emerging bees. The question would be, can you get the concentration high enough to really make a difference without adverse effects to the bees?
Click to expand...


----------



## BjornBee

Why fumigate with acetic acid? Why not do what research has shown to be healthy for bees, and just replace some comb every so often?

I sat through many reports this past weekend at the Pa. State Bee Association fall meeting. One talk focused on the HIGH levels of MANY chemicals found in CCD samples sent for testing. One result was 22,000 part per billion of fluvalinate, among the other chemicals found. This was ironic to hear since this came after a round table discussion of SUPPOSED professional beekeepers, who went off into right field, discussing the use and application of Tactic and Mavrik, until they were abruptly cut off for obvious reasons from a Penn State researcher who had heard enough.

The best part, was a slide show of a rather outspoken beekeeper who lost ALOT of hives to CCD. In the slide show was a picture of a pile of comb that was being replaced. The comment was that "with all the dead outs, it was an opportune time to change out some comb." How old was the comb he mentioned. "About 30 years or more" was commented.

I think more people should try clean comb....


----------



## JBJ

"The question would be, can you get the concentration high enough to really make a difference without adverse effects to the bees?" GW

The results I have heard about is the answer to your question is a resounding yes. It was also mentioned that the stored thymol syrup even appears to eliminate spores on the combs over time with repeated use, as well as eliminating Nosema from the bees themselves. We will definitely be hearing more published about this, hopefully soon. It is also very economical, much cheaper than fumagillan. I know of several beeks who have used thymol in syrup just to prevent their syrup from molding, cleaning up microsporidians would be an added benefit.

Bjorn, I agree that comb renewal is great and a very important general management practice, but it would be nice for the commercial pollinator (or anyone else)who has new combs, but still tested positive for Nosema to have a viable option to protect their investment.


----------



## BjornBee

The difference between testing positive or negative...is that whether they find ANY spores (I assume they are looking for spores, I don't know alot about this) or is that using some kind of theshhold standard of count?


----------



## Gene Weitzel

BjornBee said:


> The difference between testing positive or negative...is that whether they find ANY spores (I assume they are looking for spores, I don't know alot about this) or is that using some kind of theshhold standard of count?


From what I have read, an infection rate of 10,000 spores per bee would be undetectable. In an extreme infestation, the rates are counted on the order of 10's of millions of spores per bee.


----------



## Gene Weitzel

JBJ said:


> "The question would be, can you get the concentration high enough to really make a difference without adverse effects to the bees?" GW
> 
> The results I have heard about is the answer to your question is a resounding yes. It was also mentioned that the stored thymol syrup even appears to eliminate spores on the combs over time with repeated use, as well as eliminating Nosema from the bees themselves. We will definitely be hearing more published about this, hopefully soon. It is also very economical, much cheaper than fumagillan. I know of several beeks who have used thymol in syrup just to prevent their syrup from molding, cleaning up microsporidians would be an added benefit.


I would be very interested in seeing the information regarding this. Also it seems that if enclosing stored comb with a container of thymol crystals works, it would be an easier less messy fumigation method than acetic acid.


----------



## JBJ

I have only heard of it being fed in a syrup, and of course in the contentious FGMO, and these are to different subjects as far as I know. 

As bees store the medicated syrup on the comb I would theorize that the relative concentration of thymol would increase as the syrup was dried and capped, thus producing some antiseptic affect on the comb. The operative word here is theory, I have not seen the hardcore research documents yet.


----------



## JBJ

http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman/thymolx1.html
here is one recipe that has been on the net a while.

I checked my notes from our recent fall OSBA conference and I see that .25g per gallon syrup was mentioned. The recipe was soon to be published on line by Randy Oliver. The general picture is that the crystals were dissolved in alcohol then added to syrup but the details of the recipe had to be verified then published.

I will bet good bees that Kieth Jarret knows a decent preparation.


----------



## Michael Bush

*Beneficial Microorganisms*

>So if there is a microorganism in a bee, that's a problem for the bee.

Simply not true.


http://www.beeculture.com/content/News From The CCD Scientists.p
df

"The bacterial sequences were those normally found in bees worldwide,
analyzed by Nancy A. Moran, the Regents' professor of ecology and
evolutionary biology, University of Arizona, and colleagues and Jay
Evans, research entomologist, Bee Research Laboratory, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service and
colleagues."

""The bacteria found were the same as those found in two previous
studies from two different parts of the world at two different times,"
says CoxFoster.
"They represent mutualistic or symbiotic relationships
with the bees, similar to those of humans and the bacteria found in the
human gut.""

"Researchers including Lipkin and Diana CoxFoster,
entomology
professor at Pennsylvania State University, and colleagues have taken
a new approach to investigating infectious disease outbreaks. To find
the cause of CCD they used a rapid genome sequencing technique
called pyrosequencing to catalogue the entire variety of
microorganisms that honey bees harbor. After comparing their
sequences with known sequences held in public databases, they
identified symbiotic and pathogenic bacteria, fungi and viruses found
in both healthy and CCDafflicted
colonies."

"While unquestionably it is important to identify the cause of CCD, this
total genetic study of bees and their fellow travelers also may lead to
a
better understanding of other disease causing agents in the population
and to an understanding of the beneficial organisms that reside within
the bee."

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/aug98/bees0898.htm

"Helpful microbes that live in the hives, stored food, and bodies of
healthy honey bees enhance many aspects of bee life. Some of the
microorganisms produce antibiotics that might hold the key to
protecting tomorrow's domesticated honey bees from one of their worst
enemies --the harmful Ascosphaera apis fungus that causes chalkbrood
disease."

""A natural organism that's already known to occur in hives of
healthyhoney bees,"says Agricultural Research Service microbiologist
Martha A. Gilliam, "should be easier than a synthetic chemical to
register with the federal government as a biological control for
chalkbrood."Gilliam is with the ARS Carl Hayden Bee Research Center in
Tucson, Arizona."

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_11
5=187749

Title: ANTAGONISTIC INTERACTIONS BETWEEN HONEY BEE BACTERIAL SYMBIONTS
AND IMPLICATIONS FOR DISEASE.

"We survey colonies for additional resident bacteria species that
directly inhibit the AFB bacterium. We report a large set of such
bacteria and discuss how they might be involved in natural disease
resistance. These beneficial bacteria also might be introduced to
colonies as a means of controlling disease, providing a new tool for
beekeepers in controlling this bacterium and reducing reliance on
conventional antibiotics."

"Technical Abstract: Insects harbor diverse bacterial symbionts, many of
which have strong effects on insect survival and reproduction.
Facultatively symbiotic bacteria can affect insect nutrition,
immuno-competence, and susceptibility to disease agents. Honey bees and
other social insects maintain a diverse microbial biome within which
inhibitory and mutualistic interactions are expected."


http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_11
5=159450

"Technical Abstract: Honey bee larvae of four ages were exposed through
feeding to spores of both a natural pathogen, Paenibacillus larvae
larvae and to spores of a diverse set of non-pathogenic bacteria.
Larvae responded by upregulating transcription of the gene encoding the
antimicrobial peptide abaecin, both when exposed to the actual pathogen
and to the probiotic mix. 1st-instar larvae responded significantly to
the presence of the probiotic mix within 12 hours after exposure, a
time when they remain highly susceptible to bacterial invasion. This
response was sustained for two successive larval instars, eventually
becoming 21-fold higher in larvae exposed to probiotic spores versus
control larvae. The probiotic mix is therefore presented as a potential
surrogate for assaying the immune responses of different honey bee
lineages. It is also proposed that a dietary exposure to probiotic
bacteria might help honey bee larvae, and other life stages, survive
attacks from pathogens."


http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/sep2006/293.pdf

"These studies were carried out over three years and included different
developmental stages. There
were substantial qualitative as well quantitative differences in the
microbial types depending on the
species, developmental stage and the diet. Apis mellifera adults
predominantly contained Lactobacilus
wheras larval SSCP patterns had a predominance of bands corresponding to
Salmonella enterica var typhi,
uncultured Simonesiella and uncultured Serratia. This is presumably
because the food source for forager
bees (honey and nectar) has a low pH of approximately 3.9 and
lactobacilli can tolerate this pH. The pH of
larval gut is around 7 and is less favourable for Lactobacilli. On the
other hand, the gut from the larvae of
solitary bee O. bicornis showed SSCP patterns quite different from the
other two species, which could be
due to different social habit and also difference in development. The
gut of this species opens during the
early development of the larvae whereas for the other two species it
opens much later, just before pupation.
This would result in differences in physicochemical conditions and thus
differences in the microbiota.
Despite these differences, the bacteria from the three different bee
species refl ected clusters of highly
similar sequences even from specimens collected from different
continents. Both larvae and adults of
A. mellifera contained sequences related to uncultured species of
Simonsiella, Serratia, L. crispatus and
Gluconacetobacter. The bacteria could have either survived pupation or
were inoculated through food
and/or mouth-to-mouth contact. Interestingly, these sequences, found in
all three bee species, were also
reported in other two A. mellifera subspecies. The earlier study on A.
mellifera sub-species in South Africa
showed that out of 10 unique 16S rRNA sequences, bacteria from six
genera were shared in both subspecies
(Jeyaprakash et al 2003). Studies by Mohr and Tebbe (2006) retrieved 179
16S rRNA sequences, which
represented 68 phylotypes. Among these, the overlap was very high for fi
ve genera and these may represent
bacterial species that are highly abundant and cosmopolitan, adapted to
survival in the gut.
In summary, it appears that insect guts are reservoirs for a large
variety of microbes. Many are poorly
characterized and considering the diversity of insects, there must be
novel microbes awaiting discovery.
Our understanding of the biology of insects will be incomplete without a
comprehensive understanding
of their gut microbes, as these have a signifi cant impact on various
life processes of the hosts. While the
roles of endosymbionts like Wolbachia and Buchnera are better
understood, not much is known about the
normal microbial community fl ora. Characterization of midgut microbes
using molecular tools is the fi rst
step in understanding their role in insect biology. Application of
genomics and proteomics would further
our understanding of their interaction. Genome sequencing projects of
such bacteria are underway and
they will eventually help in defi ning the minimal essential genes
required for the bacteria to multiply
and survive in insect gut. They will help in distinguishing transient
from resident populations and in
understanding interactions between bacteria and their host insects at
molecular level."


http://www.jesterbee.com/Beebread.html

Probiotic protein feed for Honey Bees


http://insects.suite101.com/article.cfm/nosema_spp_honeybee_parasites

Spores of Microsporea range in size from about three to six micrometers
(a micrometer, or micron, is one one-thousandth of a millimeter), the
size of many intestinal bacteria. Nosema apis spores are four to six
micrometers long and two to four micrometers wide. They are marvelous
organisms, perfectly designed for invading the intestinal cells of their
hosts.


----------



## Michael Bush

*Surviving Nosema*

>As there is no Nosema-resistant stock out there, any illusion that one
might cling to about about somehow having "nosema resistant stock"
as a result of letting hives die would be self-delusion. In fact, one
must kill the nosema spores that would remain on the comb (Acetic
acid seems to be the current favorite) if one wants to re-use combs
from a hive that died from Nosema, so letting Nosema get out of hand
can wipe out not just a hive, but multiple hives in the same yard
as a result of robbing, and multiple colonies put on the infected
woodenware.

If that were true then honey bees would already be extinct.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> It has been found that honeybees live longer on pollen removed from 
> combs than on trap collected. This could be due to the three genera 
> of bacterial flora found so far in stored beebread: Pseudamonas, 
> Lactobacillus, and Saccharomyces. This study was done in 1966. 
> This is From the hive and the Honeybee, granted a very old citation.

No problem with what you are saying, but we are off on a tangent,
as these bacteria are NOT in the bee's digestive system, and could
not be harmed at all by use of an antibiotic feed for bees unless the
feed was overfed, or fed at the wrong time, and thereby ended up
being mechanically mixed with the pollen to form "bee bread".

Perhaps I was not clear enough - my sole interest was in refuting
the false impression that bees were negatively affected by antibiotics
in a similar manner to the way humans are, in that humans must
support an entire bestiary of flora (and fauna?) that are considered
"beneficial" to the health of the human.


----------



## Michael Bush

*Feeding*

>Of course, Mike says he does not feed his bees
either

I have never said that and, indeed have often said I do.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfeeding.htm


----------



## Michael Bush

*Organic*

>And while we are on the subject, calling one's honey "organic"
without following the USDA "National Organic Program" rules
is a violation of federal law, and carries steep fines. Ditto
for calling one's "growing methods" organic.

Are you refering to my use of the work organic just now?

I thought I made the context of my use of the word "organic" very clear. It was, as plainly stated, in the context of classifying personal philosophy, not as a certification or as a honey label or any claim of any type. You have plainly tried to take it out of that context an put it in the legal context of a certification or a honey label. I realize the word is ambiguous and perhaps even ironic, but so is any other word used to attempt to convey the same meaning. I don't really think "biological" is any less ambiguous. "Natural" can be anything you'd like it to be as well. In the context of a philosophy of life (which is the context it was used in) it seems to convey a preference for the avoidance of pesticides, antibiotics and other such things in your food. I am sorry if you didn't get the context, but I am quite baffled as to how to have made it more clear.


----------



## Jim Fischer

Mike, you selected words that certainly *sounded* like they might
support your stance, but you must now ask the crucial question
about any of these organisms being affected by the use of
fumagillin in the treatment of Nosema.

This might reveal where these various microgranisms live
(most live around the mouth of the bee, but are ubiquitous
within the hive, and are easily and continuously replaced).

It will also reveal to you just how narrow-focus fumagilln is.

Regardless, the point should be obvious - bees are insects,
and humans are mammals, so comparisons between them
and the impact of antibiotic use on them have little value. 
Fumagillin is absoultely *HARMLESS* to bees, brood, and even 
all the pests and pathogens of bees except Nosema.

Your point would be well taken if applied to animal (mammal)
husbandry, but tends to confuse matters in regard to bees.


----------



## Michael Bush

*pH*

>But if this made any difference, the beekeepers who fed honey would
have less incidence of these specific problems. They don't, so it
doesn't.

Could you give me a reference for that fact?

>For the brood diseases, the difference appears to be a moot point, given
that bees convert the feed or the honey to a consistent brood food
product with a consistent pH before feeding it to brood, thus eliminating
the problem as it applies to the brood diseases.

That's not entirely true:

Food source changing pH:

http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/HBE/04-091.pdf

"Honey bee larvae, approximately 4-5 days old, were sampled from
randomly selected colonies at five
commercially managed apiaries in central and western Victoria. The mean
pH varied significantly
between apiary locations (range 6.258 to 6.506). This may be a result of
bees foraging on different
pollen and nectar plants at these locations. The pH of larval guts
sampled from colonies
approximately 100 km apart but foraging on the same plant species was
similar at 6.277 and 6.258
respectively."


"The gut of the honey bee larva is the primary site where M. pluton,
multiplies and causes infection.
Variations in pH of the larval gut could influence the multiplication of
M. pluton and therefore its
pathogenic virulence on larvae.
Factors such as variation in plant species, soil type, pH, moisture and
fertility may influence the pH of
pollen. These factors could ultimately induce changes of pH in the
larval gut and thereby influence
multiplication of M. pluton."


"Table 1. Mean pH of honey bee larval gut contents sampled from five
colonies at various Victorian
locations in autumn 2001.
Site number and Honey bee colony number and mean pH of ten larval guts
location 1 2 3 4 5
Mean pH for
each location
1. Grampians 6.556 6.419 6.197 6.205 6.177 6.311
2. Lismore 6.448 6.244 6.226 6.255 6.279 6.290
3. Pyrenees 6.651 6.474 6.497 6.434 6.476 6.506
4. Trentham 6.451 6.165 6.238 6.229 6.302 6.277
5. Mt. Cole 6.315 6.212 6.273 6.262 6.230 6.258
The difference in pH between all five sites was statistically
significant.
In the laboratory M. pluton grew well on culture media of pH 6.6 but did
not grow on culture media of
pH 4.0 or pH 8.0. The difference in mortality between the five groups of
larvae was low and not
statistically significant. There was no difference in the development of
larvae fed food of various pH.
Discussion and Conclusions
* The greatest difference of pH measured at the 5 sites was 0.248 and
occurred between sites 3 and
5.
* The pH of gut contents of honey bee larvae varied significantly
between apiary locations. We
suggest that this was a result of honey bee foragers having access to
different pollen and nectar
resources at sites 1-4. Interestingly, sites 4 and 5 had the same nectar
and pollen yielding plant
species and even though they were approximately 100 km apart, the mean
pH of larval guts was
similar at 6.277 and 6.258 respectively (Table 1).
* We found a high variability between the pH of guts removed from larvae
of a given colony. The
variability may have resulted from sampling larvae of different age (4
days versus 5 days of age);
difficulty in obtaining sufficient volume of gut contents for pH
determination and/or slight
differences in the constituent of food fed to larvae by the nurse bees
of the colony.
* Laboratory studies showed that M. pluton is sensitive to changes of
pH.
* The laboratory studies also indicated that in the laboratory, honey
bee larvae have a capacity to
buffer their diet and consequently may not be adversely affected by
changes in the pH of larval
food, as previously suggested by other researchers.
Recommendation
That the influence of pH changes on the viability and growth of M.
pluton within the honey bee larval
gut be further investigated using laboratory reared larvae as described
later in this report."


>No, that's an inference that is absolutely wrong.
The bee will digest the carbohydrates. The pH of the bee's hemolymph
will not change as a result of consuming one type of feed or another,
any more than your blood will change in pH as a result of eating sugar
one hour, and honey the next. You also digest carbohydrates.

That does not appear to be the common belief:


http://www.knology.net/~k4vb/Antennae/The Attennae 6-06.pdf

"Oxalic Acid Mechanism of Action: The mechanism of action of oxalic acid
on Varroa has not been studied in detail but
it may be attributed to the sensitivity of Varroa to acid conditions.
Studies have shown that after topical administration
of oxalic acid to honey bees, there is an interval of time in which the
oxalic concentration in internal organs including
hemolymph of the bee increases. This suggests that oxalic acid
penetrates through bee keratin and can be ingested by
Varroa through the hemolymph when hives are treated, thus producing the
toxic effect on the mite."

http://www.mitegone.com/forms/Dr M Stanghellini Report Edited.pd
f

"...oxalic acid, probably as a protoplasmic poison by acidifying the
host bee's hemolymph..."


----------



## Michael Bush

*Dangerous*

>It is not even a little bit dangerous.

I suppose that's why the European Union outlawed it, because it was so safe. No wait, I remember now, it's because it believed to cause birth defects, isn't it?

http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/teratogens.html

"An agent, such as a virus, a drug, or radiation, that causes
malformation of an embryo or fetus."

"List of Known and Suspected Teratogens...
...
Fulvine
Fumidil
Furapyrimidone..."

Try a search on the interenet on: Teratogens and Fumidil and see how many other references you can find.

So let's assume the risk is REALLY low. How low does it need to be to risk birth defects?


----------



## Michael Bush

*No Fall Flow*

>In some of his posts he has attributed the lack of stores to drought or a poor fall flow, but could it be possible that his bees don't live to full life expectancy due to not having a diagnosis for nosema by not having his bees tested and not properly eliminating the problem by medicating? We all know or should know you can have nosema without any obvious symptoms and if you do have it your bees can die without gathering the amount of nectar they could otherwise when they are healthy and you may not get the surplus you were banking on.

No fall flow is no fall flow. It was experienced by everyone around here.

I was not expecting any surplus. My main reasons for no crop are raising queens and aggressively trying to grow to more hives. I expected no honey due to aggressively splitting and the resources spent on queen rearing. However I did hope for a fall flow so I wouldn't have to feed, which failed the last two years, for me and all the beekeepers around here that are using fumidil. I see no reason to blame a lack of fall flow, nor a lack of honey on nosema.


----------



## Jim Fischer

Everyone else has moved on to specific formulas for treating
nosema, the amazing shortage of fumagillin in the face of 
higher demand than in prior years, and other practical matters,
but I guess I still have to answer Mike.
I said:_
"As there is no Nosema-resistant stock out there, any illusion that one
might cling to about about somehow having "nosema resistant stock"
as a result of letting hives die would be self-delusion. In fact, one
must kill the nosema spores that would remain on the comb (Acetic
acid seems to be the current favorite) if one wants to re-use combs
from a hive that died from Nosema, so letting Nosema get out of hand
can wipe out not just a hive, but multiple hives in the same yard
as a result of robbing, and multiple colonies put on the infected
woodenware."
_ 
Mike retorted:

> "If that were true then honey bees would already be extinct."

What are you saying now, Mike?
If what (specifically) were true, then honey bees would be extinct?

Maybe you honestly believe you have "Nosema-resistant" bees,
rather than simply have been lucky enough to avoid it. The test
would be simple, someone could send you some infected comb,
which ought to be enough to subject the bees to some "Nosema
pressure". 

If you actually *had* nosema-resistant bees, then you can become 
a wealthy man, so please do not fail to follow up on this. But I
can't give you very good odds at all.

The mere existence of bee pests and diseases does not assure
the extinction of bees, moreso when so many beekeepers go
out of their way to treat disease, eliminate pests to the best
of their ability, and otherwise create a better environment for
bees. This allows some beekeepers to enjoy the fruits of the
labor of others, in the form of pest and disease-free areas.

Other beekeepers are simply isolated. I had an isolated yard
that tested amazingly well. 

Of course, these beekeepers credit their own skill, rather than
simple isolation or the ceaseless labor of others.

But one cannot say "I don't have" something that they don't
test for. So while each may choose their treatment option,
including "none", remaining ignorant of the health of one's
bees is simply irresponsible husbandry.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Everyone else has moved on to specific formulas for treating
nosema

Sorry, I had to work all day and didn't get a chance to respond until now.

>If what (specifically) were true, then honey bees would be extinct?

>>As there is no Nosema-resistant stock out there, any illusion that one
might cling to about about somehow having "nosema resistant stock"
as a result of letting hives die would be self-delusion. In fact, one
must kill the nosema spores that would remain on the comb (Acetic
acid seems to be the current favorite) if one wants to re-use combs
from a hive that died from Nosema, so letting Nosema get out of hand
can wipe out not just a hive, but multiple hives in the same yard
as a result of robbing, and multiple colonies put on the infected
woodenware.

Obviously the spores would just keep wiping out new bees that move in and spreading to the hives that robbed the hive that failed. In no time there would be no bees. Obviously some bees are surviving nosema. If they survived, then they resisted.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Obviously the spores would just keep wiping out new bees that 
> move in and spreading to the hives that robbed the hive that 
> failed. In no time there would be no bees. Obviously some bees 
> are surviving nosema. If they survived, then they resisted.

[edit by mod]

Do you have any idea how seldom Nosema is fatal to the
colony? It seems that you aren't.

But I'll say it again - if you really did have Nosema resistant
bees, rather than the much more-common low-level persistent 
cases of Nosema, or the luck of isolation, you could make
enough money to quit your day job, maybe move out and
get your own place, upgrade your wardrobe, whatever.


----------



## JBJ

Jim Fischer said:


> > It has been found that honeybees live longer on pollen removed from
> > combs than on trap collected. This could be due to the three genera
> > of bacterial flora found so far in stored beebread: Pseudamonas,
> > Lactobacillus, and Saccharomyces. This study was done in 1966.
> > This is From the hive and the Honeybee, granted a very old citation.
> 
> No problem with what you are saying, but we are off on a tangent,
> as these bacteria are NOT in the bee's digestive system, and could
> not be harmed at all by use of an antibiotic feed for bees unless the
> feed was overfed, or fed at the wrong time, and thereby ended up
> being mechanically mixed with the pollen to form "bee bread".
> 
> Perhaps I was not clear enough - my sole interest was in refuting
> the false impression that bees were negatively affected by antibiotics
> in a similar manner to the way humans are, in that humans must
> support an entire bestiary of flora (and fauna?) that are considered
> "beneficial" to the health of the human.


Has the hardcore science been done on this yet? A pretreatment and post treatment microbiological survey of the critters living in the bee bread and in the bee would be an interesting study to see.

My gut flora is telling me that there is a complex microbial ecology that we are just beginning to understand that is going on in bee bread and in the bee digestive system. The next breakthrough in apiculture may come in a petri dish. Some bacteria are already manufactured to control fungi in horticultural settings. Perhaps if we look hard enough there may be microbiological pest control options for bee pests and pathogens other than bt for the lepidopteran vermin of the hive... 

At this point a little Hive Antiseptic (thymol syrup) sounds like a great safe alternative way to keep ones syrup fresh from molds and yeast and the bee gut clean and free of microsporidia. An all around hive tonic coming soon to a website near you.


----------



## tecumseh

some of this back and forth reminds me of a good tennis game, but it sure does make my neck hurt.

anyone have any specific literature citing and instruction in the use of thymol?

mr bush sezs:
I suppose that's why the European Union outlawed it, because it was so safe. No wait, I remember now, it's because it believed to cause birth defects, isn't it?

tecumseh replies:
I think BELIEVED is the operational word in this sentence. undoubtly the europeans are much most sensitive about what goes into their food than most 'mericans. they can also be much more alarmist and quite willing to point to some cause when there is absolutely no evidence to support the charge. if you made a list of all the things that the european's though cause birth defects it would include everything except french wine and german beer.


----------



## Jim Fischer

The fun thing about discussions on the internet
is that people will abandon an issue where their
arguments have been pulverized, and focus 
instead on minutiae, as if these tiny little points 
could somehow change the basic outcome on 
the major point that was discussed/debated. 
Thus, we have drifted from a discussion of 
Nosema to a discussion of pH values in brood.

pH values commonly range from 0 to 14, so once again,
Mike googled, found something that contained the
words he was seeking, and posted it in an attempt
to pass it off as if it were some sort of rebuttal 
to my description of the pH range of brood food as 
"consistent".

What was the variation in pH values "found"? 
It said "range 6.258 to 6.506". A difference of 0.248, 
which the paper cited inexplicability called "significant"
at one point, but is clearly a trivial difference, given 
that most measurements of pH are inherently uncertain, 
and only valid when described as whole number integers.

Values of 6.1 to 6.9 do not change the designation 
of the resulting substance from "neutral" at all. 
The designation remains *consistent* as "neutral". 
One would say that there has been no change in pH 
at all unless one were using very anal-retentive 
practices and methods.

It seems clear that in the context of the paper,
the differences are being described as "_statistically
significant_", rather than significant in the range,
as the range is clearly *trivial*. Since the only
further use of the term is to describe statistical
significance (a form of *consistency* in results),
it seems clear that the word "statistically" was
either dropped in the draft of the paper, or 
considered redundant, given the obvious insignificance
of the numerical range of pH values documented.

For example, here is a pH color chart. Note the
lack of colors for a 0.248th of a pH interval.
Think about what that means.
It means that it just doesn't matter. [edit by mod]

Let's continue with this [edit by mod] attempt to make this
"0.248th of a pH" look like something important, or of value
to the bees or the beekeeper:

> "In the laboratory M. pluton grew well on culture media of 
> pH 6.6 but did not grow on culture media of pH 4.0 or pH 8.0."

Gee, looks like a mere quarter-point won't do anything to
M. pluton, will it? You need a much bigger pH difference,
one that was well outside the consistent range of pH in
which brood food, and hence larvae stomachs are *
consistently *maintained by the bees with their powerful 
enzymes that produce *consistently consistent* results.

> "The difference in mortality between the five groups of
> larvae was low and not statistically significant."

So, within the *consistent* range of pH used by bees, 
(6.x to 6.x) larvae consistently survive. Sounds like 
*consistency* is a good thing for the bees, and they 
are *consistently* able to keep it within acceptable limits.

> There was no difference in the development of larvae fed 
> food of various pH.

So, while one COULD feed larvae brood food that was much
less *consistent*, and expect them to survive, the bees
still make and feed them this *consistently consistent* 
brood food. Gee, I wonder why?

> "The greatest difference of pH measured at the 5 sites 
> was 0.248..."

Yeah, 0.248. A fraction of a "pH". Whoopee.
More to the point, a tiny change with no impact at all
on either the survival/health of the larvae, or the survival 
or health of the brood disease. So, like I said:

*It is CONSISTENT*

I think we are done addressing this minor side-issue,
as it became a side issue due to a lack of understanding
of basic concepts like pH, and an lack of comprehension
of what was quoted before posting.

*Note:*
For those who forgot, the pH scale is a logarithmic scale.
Any value between 6 and 7 is considered "neutral",
neither acid or alkaline.

Each whole-number pH value below 7 is ten times 
more acidic than the next higher value, so pH 4 
is ten times more acidic than pH 5 and pH 5 is
10 times more acidic than ph 6.

Above 7, each whole number is ten times more 
alkaline ("basic") than the next lower whole value.

Yes, one can measure relative values of pH with
greater precision than whole numbers, but these
values are not going to change the essential
designations "acid", "neutral", and "alkaline" in
the least.


----------



## BjornBee

My question about this treatment...why so expensive, and why no company from the U.S.?

The active ingredient is dicyclohexylammonium HS

I can can find all type of dicyclohexylammonium with a number of nomenclatures and extra letters. Seems that dicyclohexylammonium salt is common. I don't know what all the numbers and letters are that are added to "dicyclohexylammonium", but someone knows. 

Can't this be something that can be purchased in bulk and somehow broken into smaller amounts? 

The actual amount of dicyclohexylammonium HS is only 21 mg of medication per gram of product. So a little goes a long way.

Anyone?


----------



## Jim Fischer

> why so expensive, and why no company from the U.S.?

It was made in the US by the fine folks at Mid-Con Agrimarketing
in Olathe, Kansas (who also sold a full line of bee supplies) until
complaints were made to the FDA (clearly by another bee supply
company unhappy with Mid-Con's dominance of the "market" for
this, at the time, unique treatment).

The complains concerned the actual amount of active ingredient
in each bottle. It was a "labeling issue". Mid-Con could have
spent a whole pile of money to upgrade their mixing equipment,
and assure a more precise mix, but instead, decided that there 
was not enough profit in selling Fumadil, and simply stopped making it.

They also shut down their entire beekeeping-related business.
Perhaps part of the reason was that someone in the industry
that they had served and loved for decades had tried hard
to catch the attention of the FDA and "get them in trouble"
over control of a low-margin, high-cost, high-risk product
with endless overhead in the form of FDA (and EPA?) paperwork.

Imagine the amount of effort required to get a Bush-era 
regulatory agency to actually do some enforcement of any
regulation against a business. The only more difficult
thing would have been to strangle the owners with one's
bare hands. I would have sold out and retired too.

So, we are left with the Canadians, who don't seem to
be able to ramp up manufacturing fast enough to keep
up with the demand caused by widespread outbreaks of
Nosema.

The actual fungus is grown in greenhouses in India, as
warm temperatures are needed to grow it. I doubt if
there is a limited supply of the raw materials, so the
"problem" is again, a lack of upgrade/investment in
aging and limited-capacity production gear, same as
with beekeeping woodenware. (Except for Mann Lake's
showy "fully assembled woodenware" semi-automated
production line, no one in beekeeping has been able to
afford to upgrade capital equipment. Mere maintenance
is difficult to justify. The actual numbers simply don't
work these days - beekeepers are not customers that
justify even modest investment at the prices currently
paid for beekeeping supplies. It does not take an MBA
to see that something's gotta give here.)

But, as noted, thymol seems to do the trick, and is much
cheaper, so perhaps Mid-Con made the "correct" choice.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

tecumseh said:


> some of this back and forth reminds me of a good tennis game, but it sure does make my neck hurt.
> 
> anyone have any specific literature citing and instruction in the use of thymol?


Hey Tec, you got that right, I would be here all day trying to type that much FLUFF at once.

And yes, but have some copyright things to follow here .


----------



## Keith Jarrett

BjornBee said:


> My question about this treatment...why so expensive, and why no company from the U.S.?



It's not expensive, under ten cents a hive.


----------



## BjornBee

Keith Jarrett said:


> It's not expensive, under ten cents a hive.



How do you figure that?


----------



## Jim Fischer

>> So if there is a microorganism in a bee, that's a problem for the bee.

> Simply not true.

Massively misinformed to call the statement "not true".

Note I said "*IN* a bee", not "*ON* a bee".
Big difference.

But if you want to say its not true, then show me the beneficial 
organisms, show me ANY organism other than Nosema in this 
400x slide, prepared with the greatest of care using only the finest
old-world craftsmanship:
http://bee-quick.com/ccd/latent_nosema.jpg

[waits patiently...]

Yeah, neither can I.

Or, send me your own slides, and I'll put them up on one of
my servers for you. Oh, that's right - you've never looked
for Nosema, have you? So why are you taking up so much space
and so much of everyone's time in this thread?

"_The bacterial sequences were those normally found in bees worldwide..."_

Go ahead, ask the obvious question that you are hoping everyone skips
over, so you can look "correct" rather than completely and utterly wrong 
on this very minor side-issue.

The bacteria found was mostly _*external *_to the bees.
Yes, some have beneficial functions, but none of them would be
killed off by feeding any form of antibiotic, certainly not the
narrow-focus product fumagillin, the original subject from which
you have single-handedly taken us so far away, to distract from
the need for you to retract your statements. 

"_They represent mutualistic or symbiotic relationships
with the bees, similar to those of humans and the 
bacteria found in the human gut._"

OK, but are the bacteria associated with bees found 
IN THE BEE GUT? No, they are simply said to be
"mutualistic or symbiotic". The actual bacteria are
not in the bee gut, and cannot be affected by the
use of antibiotics, certainly not certainly not the
narrow-focus product fumagillin. The comparison to
the human bacteria was used to explain how "normal" 
most of what they found was, nothing more.

So, yes, there is bacteria in bee hives, but
you aren't going to kill any of it by feeding fumagillin,


Mike's just wrong again, so his posts get much longer
and more forceful, and full of long cut-and-pasted
quotes as a result. The vain attempts are to defend 
incorrect claims made in support of a form of extremely 
laissez-faire beekeeping I can only define as "bee-having". 

My bees aren't natural at all. They are an introduced
species, that just love introduced, often invasive exotic
plants, I keep them in boxes, and they would not be 
alive at all if I had not bought their ancestors and put
them in those boxes. When they get one of the many
invasive, exotic diseases or pests brought to us by all
that new-fangled world trade, I have a choice, and
I choose to do what I can to help God's creatures.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Well, I spent $200 to treat two thousand.


----------



## BjornBee

Thanks Keith. That answers alot. I'll end any further questions. No need to turn this into another "I've got a secret recipe, but I won't tell you anything" thread.


----------



## Gene Weitzel

For those interested, here is a link that discusses the use of thymol as an alternative treatment for nosema, including specifics on how to mix the stock solution and what concentration is needed, and a blurb about a possible mechanism for how it works:

http://www.msstate.edu/Entomology/beenews/beenews0304.htm

Estimated cost is about 30 cents per 8 gal of syrup.

Here is a link to a possible source for thymol crystals (I don't know anything about this outfit, just a link I found):

http://www.everydayhenna.com/thymol.html


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Estimated cost is about 30 cents per 8 gal of syrup.

And thus, the market for fumadil evaporated into thin air,
without anyone noticing. [From the "_ABC & XYZ Of Bee Culture_", 2025 edition]


----------



## JBJ

There is some good information creeping into the conversation here, but the debate between JF and MB does seem to be a bit acrimonious and personal at times.

Speaking of good info, here some from Randy Oliver on how to prepare thymolated syrup:

http://www.scientificbeekeeping.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45

I am still not convinced there are no beneficial microbes in bees. 

Where are the surveys of healthy untreated hives to compare with the untreated? I also missed where the 8 benefiical microbes were stated to be "ecto-microbes" as opposed to "endo-microbes" I would like to see some good science on the microbial ecology of the honey bee. 

Is there a microbiologist in the house?

The 8 species mentioned in the previously cited article must have names and something known of there biology.


----------



## Gene Weitzel

Jim Fischer said:


> > Estimated cost is about 30 cents per 8 gal of syrup.
> 
> And thus, the market for fumadil evaporated into thin air,
> without anyone noticing. [From the "_ABC & XYZ Of Bee Culture_", 2025 edition]


If you trust the source I quoted for thymol crystals, the cost is even less, about 11 cents per 8 gal of syrup.


----------



## Michael Bush

MB:>>>>>Are there beneficial microorganisms living in bees *and beehives?* Are they affected by Fumidil? 

JF:>>>> So if there is a microorganism in a bee, that's a problem for the bee.

MB:>>> Simply not true. (followed by many references and quotes).

JF:>>Massively misinformed to call the statement "not true".

JF:>Note I said "IN a bee", not "ON a bee".
JF:>Big difference.

And I said BOTH in the BEE and in the HIVE and backed up BOTH with references which you for some reason seemed to think off the subject. You think fumidil will only kill things in the bee and not in the hive?

I quoted several references that back up both, but I will only repeat a few here with emphasis added:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archiv...8/bees0898.htm

"Helpful microbes that live *in* the hives, stored food, *and bodies of
healthy honey bees* enhance many aspects of bee life. Some of the
microorganisms produce antibiotics that might hold the key to
protecting tomorrow's domesticated honey bees from one of their worst
enemies --the harmful Ascosphaera apis fungus that causes chalkbrood
disease."

This does not say ON the bodies of healthy bees.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/pub....htm?SEQ_NO_11 5=187749

"…Insects harbor diverse bacterial symbionts, many of
which have strong effects on insect survival and reproduction.
Facultatively symbiotic bacteria can affect insect nutrition,
immuno-competence, and susceptibility to disease agents. Honey bees and
other social insects *maintain a diverse microbial biome within* which
inhibitory and mutualistic interactions are expected."

This does not say within the hive.

>The bacteria found was mostly external to the bees.
Yes, some have beneficial functions, but none of them would be
killed off by feeding any form of antibiotic, certainly not the
narrow-focus product fumagillin, the original subject from which
you have single-handedly taken us so far away, to distract from
the need for you to retract your statements. 

What? That there are beneficial microorganisms in a beehive AND in a bee? I see no need to retract a statement that appears to be common knowledge. 

Nosema is a fungus. Are you absolutely positive that Fumidil will not kill
other fungi and yeast in the hive or the bees?

Are you absolutely positive that Fumidil will not kill any beneficial
fungi or yeasts in the hive or the bees?

Are you absolutely positive that there are no beneficial fungi or yeast
in the hive or bees?

Interestingly Fumidil is derived from the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus
which is the fungus that causes stonebrood, making it sort of beneficial
and sort of not.

We also know that Ascosphaera apis which is the fungus that causes
chalkbrood, prevents EHB and AFB.

http://apis.ifas.ufl.edu/apis93/APAUG93.HTM
" Further investigation has shown that Ascosphaera apis, the causative
organism of chalkbrood disease, produces a substance that inhibits
growth of bacteria causing both American and European foulbrood. This
material has been isolated and could provide the basis for a new,
inexpensive control for both foulbroods. Thus, like the bees themselves,
the microorganisms found in the nest also are interrelated in a complex
community."

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/honeybeediseases/honeybeediseases.pdf
"Ascosphaera apis produces linoleic acid, which inhibits the growth of
Paenibacillus larvae and Melissococcus pluton."

Making it sort of beneficial and sort of not.

How do we know that there are not what appear to be otherwise benign
fungi that prevent other issues?

http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/sep2006/293.pdf

I will skip quoting this one, but the previous quote from it is almost exclusively on things living in both the gut of the nurse bees and the larvae.

JF:>Mike's just wrong again

Although I'm just as interested in beneficial organisms in the hive, if you would actually pay attention to the quotes and to what I’m saying you might notice a LOT of references to beneficial organism IN bees. But that would require more than just skimming over it and jumping to conclusions.

JF:>so his posts get much longer
and more forceful, and full of long cut-and-pasted
quotes as a result. 

Yea, I noticed how short yours are getting...

>My bees aren't natural at all.

I warned you it would just upset you... you should have stopped at the scientific/chemical point...


----------



## Jim Fischer

We are done with this thread, Michael and I, but Michael seems to
want to continue to "debate" the point.

I simply ask yet again for the name of a single microorganism, 
other than Nosema, that would be killed by Fumadil, and would 
thus make Mike's concerns about collateral damage to beneficial 
bacteria valid.

Lacking any specifics, Mike posted quite a bit of stuff that was
general in nature, but the essential question about Fumadil,
the actual subject of the discussion, remains.

Without an answer on this point, the concerns remain baseless.


----------



## tecumseh

three snips from michael bush references..
numero uno:
'that might hold the key'

numero two:
'Facultatively symbiotic bacteria can affect'

numero threeo:
'This material has been isolated and could provide'

tecumseh thinking out lout writes:
I would think that none of these references seem certain of anything and are quite weak and speculative.

then mr bush writes:
I see no need to retract a statement that appears to be common knowledge.

tecusmeh suggest:
with a new problems on the table common knowledge (in some spheres called folk and/or wives tales) will not get you to a workable solution. matter of fact at least some fairly smart folks suggest that this tendency to fall back on 'common knowledge' is a hurdle in understanding the new problem and in formulating workable solutions.


----------



## Gene Weitzel

Jim Fischer said:


> We are done with this thread, Michael and I, but Michael seems to
> want to continue to "debate" the point.
> 
> I simply ask yet again for the name of a single microorganism,
> other than Nosema, that would be killed by Fumadil, and would
> thus make Mike's concerns about collateral damage to beneficial
> bacteria valid.
> 
> Lacking any specifics, Mike posted quite a bit of stuff that was
> general in nature, but the essential question about Fumadil,
> the actual subject of the discussion, remains.
> 
> Without an answer on this point, the concerns remain baseless.


I really hate to "take sides" in this debate, but....I have to pretty much agree with Jim on this one. I have done a fair amount of research on fumagillin and everything seems to indicate that it is extremely specific in that it targets the reproductive process of microsporidians. I can find no evidence that it has any effect on bacteria or viruses. Indeed the evidence would seem otherwise, in that according to UC Davis, a lot of CA beekeepers limit its use to some degree because they find that after treatment with it their hives build up so fast in the spring that they have difficulty heading off swarming. There is a lot of research out there that shows promise for the use of fumagillin derivatives in cancer treatment. It seems that its action is so specific that its derivatives can be tailored to interrupt the reproductive process of very specific cancers. This would seem to offer further evidence to support Jim's contention that it targets only Nosema in the hive.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Gene Weitzel said:


> If you trust the source I quoted for thymol crystals, the cost is even less, about 11 cents per 8 gal of syrup.


Gene, I gave a simular equivalent numbers to Bjorn.
I can easly run your numbers backwards and find your formula, ratio .

Pretty easy for me.... one must becarefull, what's leagal and whats not.


----------



## Gene Weitzel

Keith Jarrett said:


> Gene, I gave a simular equivalent numbers to Bjorn.
> I can easly run your numbers backwards and find your formula, ratio .
> 
> Pretty easy for me.... one must becarefull, what's leagal and whats not.


Why would you need to run my numbers backwards, the formula, ratio that I used were from the MS State reference that I linked in my first post, I thought that was pretty obvious.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Gene Weitzel said:


> Why would you need to run my numbers backwards, the formula, ratio that I used were from the MS State reference that I linked in my first post, I thought that was pretty obvious.


Gene, Bjorn got upset with me when I didn't give out my formula for thymol. What I did do was give him poundages that he could convert thymol/gal syrup ratio.

Obvious for some.


----------



## Gene Weitzel

Keith Jarrett said:


> Gene, Bjorn got upset with me when I didn't give out my formula for thymol. What I did do was give him poundages that he could convert thymol/gal syrup ratio.
> 
> Obvious for some.


Did you give it to him outside this thread? Because this is what you gave in this thread:

"I spent $200 to treat two thousand."

Based on that, and the widely varying prices I have found for thymol, I would have to agree with Bjorn, in that it was completely useless information when it comes to working backwards into a formula.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Gene Weitzel said:


> Did you give it to him outside this thread? Because this is what you gave in this thread:
> 
> "I spent $200 to treat two thousand."
> 
> Based on that, and the widely varying prices I have found for thymol, I would have to agree with Bjorn, in that it was completely useless information when it comes to working backwards into a formula.


Go off a avg Gene, if you want to start spiting hairs then ask the question of how thick of syrup.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> after treatment with it their hives build up so fast in the spring 
> that they have difficulty heading off swarming.

Yeah, funny about that, isn't it? 
It is such a crucial point, but ignored by so many.

Here's the deal - when your bees are _healthy_, you either split 
everything in sight every darned spring, or you get swarms. 
Lots of swarms. This is what bees tend to do. It is how they
_reproduce_, for Pete's sake! Talk about "basic instinct"... 

This is what beekeeping _*was*_ in the days before beekeepers started spending so much time on the diseases and pests that they forgot 
about the bees.

Now, if you use Sue Cobey's NWCs in addition to using prudent
tests and appropriate treatments for diseases, you make splits and
provision the splits for intensive tasks like comb honey production,
just to keep 'em busy so they won't swarm a 2nd time.

Checkerboarding? Sure, make the bees rearrange their brood
chamber every few weeks, and they won't swarm. But they
won't swarm because they haven't expanded population.
I'd rather make a timely split, and have twice the hives.

Top Bar Beekeeping? Sure, make the bees draw combs 
"from nothing", that'll slow 'em down nearly as much as
"Checkerboarding" would, but I have the same answer
as above.

So, if splitting most of your hives every spring is not a common 
springtime task (ending in late June), and if you don't end up
splitting some hives multiple times or multiple ways, guess what?
Your bees likely have Nosema, and may have had it for as long
as you've been keeping bees. To boot, you likely have been
doing things that keep your colonies small, weak, wimpy, and 
less productive.

And the above is another reason to standardize one's gear.
With all that splitting going on, you simply don't have time
to putter about with oddball box sizes. I like "all mediums",
and so does my back.


----------



## Gene Weitzel

Keith Jarrett said:


> Go off a avg Gene, if you want to start spiting hairs then ask the question of how thick of syrup.


The only time I "spit" hairs is when I trim my moustache! 

Since your info is obviously based on the lowest price for thymol, going on the average would result in a formula that would give you a less than therapeutic concentration (0.44 mM) of thymol in the syrup. I was educated as a Chemist/Mathematician and I can say without reservation that your post did not provide enough information for the average person to "get it right". The concentration of thymol required is quite small that means that a relatively small variation (like using the average price) in one of the factors used in "back calculating" the formula can result in a pretty large error in the result. And in the immortal words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that!" 

By the way, for beekeeping purposes the thickness of the syrup does have a bearing on the concentration of thymol, since if the bees concentrate the syrup further then the concentration of the thymol goes up. But it was clear in the literature I quoted that it was a 2:1 syrup.


----------



## loggermike

http://www.everydayhenna.com/thymol.html
WARNING: This company will take your money and rip you off!!
The BBB in that area received so many complaints about them , they quit taking them. If anyone is able to contact this company ,you might mention they still owe me money for product never sent .............
just FYI:

http://pittsburgh.e-asp.net/NIS4/bbbreportaccbuscontent.asp?ID=1&ComID=0141000011002588


----------



## Gene Weitzel

loggermike said:


> http://www.everydayhenna.com/thymol.html
> WARNING: This company will take your money and rip you off!!
> The BBB in that area received so many complaints about them , they quit taking them. If anyone is able to contact this company ,you might mention they still owe me money for product never sent .............


That's why I have a VISA check card account setup specifically for internet/phone orders. I transfer just enough to cover the order right before I place the order. If I don't receive the product, my bank reverses the transaction, no questions asked. I maintain a minimal balance so that an insignificant amount is exposed to unauthorized transactions.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Gene Weitzel said:


> Since your info is obviously based on the lowest price for thymol, going on the average would result in a formula that would give you a less than therapeutic concentration (0.44 mM) of thymol in the syrup.
> 
> Well... you see your very close. But how many gallons did you feed ?? How big are the bees, some of mine are from 1-4 stories. all of these have to be consider. There is no one answer fits all, but rather a avg.
> 
> 
> >>I was educated as a Chemist/Mathematician and I can say without reservation that your post did not provide enough information for the average person to "get it right".
> 
> 
> I dont think Bjorn is avg, BTW he sell bee products on ebay and such, it's not his first day.
> 
> >> The concentration of thymol required is quite small that means that a relatively small variation
> 
> The variation on the bee hive side is huge, your spliting hairs.
> 
> BTW to find spores, is it best to look at individuals bees... OR get a large sample put them in a blender and take a AVG count ?


----------



## Gene Weitzel

Keith Jarrett said:


> Gene Weitzel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since your info is obviously based on the lowest price for thymol, going on the average would result in a formula that would give you a less than therapeutic concentration (0.44 mM) of thymol in the syrup.
> 
> Well... you see your very close. But how many gallons did you feed ?? How big are the bees, some of mine are from 1-4 stories. all of these have to be consider. There is no one answer fits all, but rather a avg.
> 
> 
> >>I was educated as a Chemist/Mathematician and I can say without reservation that your post did not provide enough information for the average person to "get it right".
> 
> 
> I dont think Bjorn is avg, BTW he sell bee products on ebay and such, it's not his first day.
> 
> >> The concentration of thymol required is quite small that means that a relatively small variation
> 
> The variation on the bee hive side is huge, your spliting hairs.
> 
> BTW to find spores, is it best to look at individuals bees... OR get a large sample put them in a blender and take a AVG count ?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but now your just babbling. Nothing you have said here has any bearing on calculating the formula for the concentration of thymol in the syrup. For that you need precise information and not averages. Of course, the volume of syrup fed per hive is variable based on the size of the hive that's a given, but again it has no bearing on the concentration of thymol in the syrup as that is a constant. If you notice, my cost was based on volume of syrup and not on average cost per hive. With the information I provided, if you know the cost of the thymol, with the volume of syrup given, it is trivial to back calculate the formulation. Using an average cost per hive (and your original post was ambiguous about the basis of the cost at best) and not knowing the volume of syrup or the precise cost of the thymol, it would be impossible to back calculate a precise formulation. Thats the whole point here. Or is it your contention that getting the concentration to within say, plus or minus an order of magnitude or two of the target is "close enough for gument work"? Hardly an approach that would instill much confidence.
> 
> As for your comment about the spore count, thats not even applicable. There is a correct time and place for the use of averages, when you need to determine the AVERAGE spore count per bee, then obviously you need a representative sample by definition, once again, trivial.
> 
> To determine a treatment formulation, averages just won't cut it, you need precise numbers especially when the therapeutic concentration is quite low as in this case.
Click to expand...


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Gene Weitzel said:


> Keith Jarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for your comment about the spore count, thats not even applicable. There is a correct time and place for the use of averages, when you need to determine the AVERAGE spore count per bee, then obviously you need a representative sample by definition, once again, trivial.
> 
> To determine a treatment formulation, averages just won't cut it, you need precise numbers especially when the therapeutic concentration is quite low as in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gene , if you have 5 hives in your back yard you can micro manage them. Now if you have thousands you run off a AVG.
> 
> In polloination, 6-8 frame avg. You don't go to every box.
> 
> In feeding, some will take one gallon, some will need five gallons.
> 
> Are you telling me your going to keep all the records and keep them seprate OR go off a avg.
> 
> Try to run a 1000 plus hives with out avgerages, never happen.
> But it can be done on a small scale.
> 
> Gene, your spliting hairs again.
Click to expand...


----------



## Gene Weitzel

Keith Jarrett said:


> Gene Weitzel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gene , if you have 5 hives in your back yard you can micro manage them. Now if you have thousands you run off a AVG.
> 
> In polloination, 6-8 frame avg. You don't go to every box.
> 
> In feeding, some will take one gallon, some will need five gallons.
> 
> Are you telling me your going to keep all the records and keep them seprate OR go off a avg.
> 
> Try to run a 1000 plus hives with out avgerages, never happen.
> But it can be done on a small scale.
> 
> Gene, your spliting hairs again.
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is I am certainly glad you are not my pharmacist!
Click to expand...


----------



## dcross

Gene Weitzel said:


> Keith Jarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is I am certainly glad you are not my pharmacist!
> 
> 
> 
> When I had to go on antibiotics, nobody asked how much I weighed before prescribing them
Click to expand...


----------



## Jim Fischer

> When I had to go on antibiotics, nobody asked how much 
> I weighed before prescribing them

But when you go to the Vet, the weight of your dog
clearly does affect dosage for all sorts of things.
(When one has both St Benards and Corgis, one notices such things)

I post the above because a comment by MichaelW prompted me
to come back to this thread, and I thought I would ask if the
Dec 2007 articles on Nosema in *both *_ABJ _and_Bee Culture_ were
any help in resolving the confusion on this issue.

Coincidence? I think not.

If nothing else, the articles appearing at the same time in two different
magazines should be clear and compelling evidence that Nosema has 
gotten completely out of hand this year, and has already been shown 
to be the proximate cause of last winter's much-higher-than-usual 
losses up in Canada.


----------



## JBJ

I wonder why loss rates are up from the Nosema twins, have application or use rates of fumagillan dropped?


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Jim Fischer;278257
But when you go to the Vet said:


> And when one work's for his father that is a Vet, he understands that there is a big difference in cleaning up behind a St Benard and a Corgis.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> I wonder why loss rates are up from the Nosema twins, have 
> application or use rates of fumagillan dropped?

Well, they aren't really "twins", which is the reason why more 
hives have been and are now being affected more seriously.

The use of fumagillin has not dropped at all. The "shortage"
of fumagillin is due to skyrocketing demand once it was
realized last spring that the US in fact had both kinds of 
Nosema, and that a hive with both kinds of Nosema at the
same time was something to avoid.

I think it is interesting to note here that if one looks at the data 
published with the "Science", one finds that the highest correlation
of all was between CCD and having both kinds of Nosema. Given
that the claimed like to IAPV was refuted when they looked at
older samples and found IAPV in US bees as early as 2002, the
"best" suspect we have left is the combination of both kinds
of Nosema.

But no one has worked up exactly what is going on at a 
mechanical level yet, so there is no understanding beyond what
we have always known, that Nosema is the most ubiquitous and
ignored problem in beekeeping as a whole, and recent events
have only underlined the need for vigilance.

So, in summary, anyone advising complacency in the face of the
compelling facts to the contrary about Nosema is offering advice 
that poses actual harm to your hives. Anyone suggesting that 
"magic beans" of one sort or another will protect one's hives from
Nosema is making the same massive mistake. Anyone claiming that
Fumagillin will result in any sort of collateral damage just does not
know their biology or chemistry.

Both ABJ and BC have articles on Nosema in December, so there
is no longer a reason to be even slightly uninformed.


----------



## JBJ

"I have found that the 0.44mM strength is not effective against nosema in the short term. I will be starting a test of 3x strength very soon. Please feel free to share this information to the benefit of beekeepers." Randy Oliver...personal communication.


----------



## JBJ

"The use of fumagillin has not dropped at all. The "shortage"
of fumagillin is due to skyrocketing demand once it was
realized last spring that the US in fact had both kinds of
Nosema, and that a hive with both kinds of Nosema at the
same time was something to avoid." JF

This is an interesting trend; it would seem application rates must be up with all that built up demand? 

Do you still discredit the reports of the presence N Cerana in the frozen US bee samples from the mid 90's? 

Also it would be alarming if "...use of fumagillan has not dropped at all." and the mortality rates are as high as being claimed. Sounds like we need a second line of defense.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Do you still discredit the reports of the presence N Cerana 
> in the frozen US bee samples from the mid 90's? 

I never did. If you think I did, either I made typos, or you
misunderstood me. 

> Also it would be alarming if "...use of fumagillan has not dropped at all." 
> and the mortality rates are as high as being claimed. Sounds like we 
> need a second line of defense.

No, the cause of the spread was complacency, such as the complacency shown in this thread. Only a tiny fraction of beekeepers had been aware
of Nosema as a serious problem before now, despite the best efforts of
extension agents, books, and magazines. Eric Mussen had been warning
people about Nosema for years now.

If you want a 2nd option, Thymol has been reported to work fairly well
against Nosema, but I have not tried this myself as yet.


----------



## JBJ

"One of the funny things about Nosema apis versus Nosema ceranae
is that once the point was raised that we had "different" Nosema,
a strange thing happened. Some labs kept seeing a certain percentage
of Nosema apis, and some started classifying everything as Nosema
ceranae.

I honestly don't know what the differences in tests, methods, and
such, but it seems to me that the labs finding nothing but Nosema
ceranae are doing something "wrong" or "different" from those that
can still find both kinds of Nosema

And the historical samples were tested by one of the labs that
can't seem to find much Nosema apis at all, so maybe someone
needs to cross-check them." Jim Fischer: http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214407&page=2

This is where I got the impression that you were discrediting the reports of N cerana's presence in frozen US bee samples from the mid-90's.

As per my previous post it sounds like there is some work to be done on working out the proper dosage of thymol in syrup for Nosema control. Hopefully this will provide a second line of defense. It sure sounds a lot cheaper and safer to handle.

"No, the cause of the spread was complacency, such as the complacency shown in this thread. Only a tiny fraction of beekeepers had been aware
of Nosema as a serious problem before now, despite the best efforts of
extension agents, books, and magazines. Eric Mussen had been warning
people about Nosema for years now." JF

Are there statistics available on the "tiny fraction" of beekeepers who are aware and treating prior to this spike in demand? Historical use of Fumagillan would be very interesting to know. I had assumed most serious commercial operations were using it. If there is a huge spike in the use of fumagillan, should we see a corresponding drop in the presence of Nosema in future bee samples?


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Are there statistics available on the "tiny fraction" of beekeepers who 
> are aware and treating prior to this spike in demand? Historical use of
> Fumagillan would be very interesting to know. 

Joli of Mid-Con might still have her own sales figures, but the big clue
is that Mid-Con decided to stop making the product rather than deal
with a somewhat minor regulatory "label problem". Clearly, they were
not making much profit on the drug.

> I had assumed most serious commercial operations were using it. 

Good question. I honestly don't know, as such things are not
often discussed. The stuff is considered both "expensive",
and "a pain to deploy", given that no serious operation feeds the
single gallon of syrup considered "a dose". When you feed bees
and want those bees to feed your family, you tend to think in
terms like "5 gallons per colony" or "several drums per yard".
But I considered Fumadil to be something that had a tangible 
short-term payback in terms of more honey, and stronger hives
for "doin apples", and nothing has changed my mind since.

> If there is a huge spike in the use of fumagillan, should we see a 
> corresponding drop in the presence of Nosema in future bee samples?

Somehow, I can't help but wonder how you expect anyone to speculate,
given that we don't yet have a good handle on the extent of the problem,
and lack a baseline count with which to see a "drop" or "increase".

Even if I were so bold as to speculate that widespread use of 
known-effective treatment for a problem said to be "epidemic" 
might have some tangible positive impact, there'd be someone to 
nay-say both Fumagillin and Thymol, and claim that they know a 
guy who knows a guy who cured nosema with crystals and 
acupuncture, or has never had any nosema at all due to clean living,
rotating brood boxes at every full moon, and hives painted orange.

In my own experience, I can say that using the stuff in spring
eliminates detectable Nosema from one's entire operation, and
that's a good thing on many different levels.


----------



## tecumseh

old sol writes:
Are there statistics available on the "tiny fraction" of beekeepers who are aware and treating prior to this spike in demand? Historical use of Fumagillan would be very interesting to know. I had assumed most serious commercial operations were using it. If there is a huge spike in the use of fumagillan, should we see a corresponding drop in the presence of Nosema in future bee samples?

tecumseh replies:
now my gut instinct to the last question is no. I would suspect that infestation rate would like rise and fall based on some kind of environment and stress vectors.

as to the first part of your question John (and I have mentioned this to some northern beekeeper directly) is that since nosema typically does not arise to obvious disasterous proportion in the southern and southwestern us of a, most beekeeper here 'likely' only notice this problem when it does combine with something else to show it's ugly head. I likely would modify your 'most serious commercial operations' to 'most all northern based commerical operations' as far as what I have witnessed.


----------



## dickm

I came to this thread late but I suspect it hasn't been noted that the first people to investigate and report on apis ceranae, from spain, held out that it takes THREE treatments of Fumagillin to control it.

dickm


----------

