# IPM



## Martha (Feb 14, 2004)

ok, me again,
IPM. I am looking at the Brushy Mt catalog (I have requested every catalog there is!).

I want to get a screened bottom thingy with a slide out sheet. Now, is it possible to make a very simple one that can fit right above my existing bottom board? I can get sheet metal at Home Depot and cut to fit. "I don't need no stinkin' store-bought grid sheet".

And - what do you use instead of the all the chems? Grease patties? Drone foundation?

Do I really need to give Fumidil-B and Terramycin? 

Now I have heard of using oils from the natural food store, but I'm not sure what they are used for.

What about organic oils (olive/grapeseed) instead of crisco for the grease patties?

We had a man from Tongenoxie come last meeting and talk about honey plants and he is an organic gardner and only used chems when he really has to - he'd rather take the chance of losing the bees then use the chems. But, the talk was on honey plants. I didn't get the chance to ask him about what he does for his bees.

Thanks again,
Martha


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I want to get a screened bottom thingy with a slide out sheet. Now, is it possible to make a very simple one that can fit right above my existing bottom board? I can get sheet metal at Home Depot and cut to fit. "I don't need no stinkin' store-bought grid sheet".

Brushy Mt also has one that fits on top of the existing bottom board. Unfortunately if you want it to do everything it should, like have a slide out screen and a 3/4" gap underneath to the sheet and a 3/4" gap on top for the bees coming and going, it's not THAT simple. But if you're handy it's not that bad either. The one Brushy Mt makes to put on top of your existing one, you turn the bottom board around and sue the bottom board for the 3/4" gap at the bottom and as the slide out tray holder. You can either look at the pictures and give it a try or you can buy one and use it for a pattern.

>And - what do you use instead of the all the chems? Grease patties? Drone foundation?

There are a variety of options for the variety of problems. First, and probably most devastating are Varroa mites. Your choices if not using chemcicals are to go to natural sized cells (small cell 4.9mm foundation) or FGMO fog and cords. If you are willing to use a bit more caustic chemcals but not pesticides, you could use formic acid or oxalic acid or thymol. In any case I would monitor your mites and see how your solution is working.

>Do I really need to give Fumidil-B and Terramycin? 

I don't. Some use it twice a year as a preventative. The Terramycin is a preventative for AFB. AFB is everywhere and is a stress disease. Try to prevent stress. If you get AFB you will be faced with the hard choice to burn the hive(s) with AFB or treat depending on the laws in your state and your choices. The Fumidil is for Nosema. Again, if you try to prevent stress and leave them honey for the winter they will be less likely to get an outbreak. Nosema is everywhere and an outbreak is almost always after a long cold spell where they bees can't fly and they've been eating sugar syrup.

>Now I have heard of using oils from the natural food store, but I'm not sure what they are used for.

The purpose of the Essential oils is to boost the immune system of the bees. They are useful in trying to prevent outbreaks of virus infections from the mites and some minor brood diseases. The most commonly used ones are Wintergreen, Peppermint and Lemongrass oil. I suppose Thymol is in this category since it's from the oil of Thyme. They are also reputed to reduce the reproduction of the Varroa, but I din't know of any study that proves this and they are useful in preventing the reproduction of the Tracheal mites because they mask the odor of a "young" bee which is what the T-mites must find to reproduce.

>What about organic oils (olive/grapeseed) instead of crisco for the grease patties?

You have to have something solid enough to hold together. I don't know if they will work.

The grease patties are for the Tracheal mites. Other things used are menthol (from oil of peppermint) and FGMO fog. The FGMO fog will kill them without having to open the hive (which you have to do for the patties and the menthol) and have the temps just right (as in the menthol). The small cell is reputed to also control Tracheal mites.

>We had a man from Tongenoxie come last meeting and talk about honey plants and he is an organic gardner and only used chems when he really has to - he'd rather take the chance of losing the bees then use the chems. But, the talk was on honey plants. I didn't get the chance to ask him about what he does for his bees.

This is the place I learned the most organic options for treating the bees.

Personally I think the "dream" of any organic keeper is to be able to NOT treat the bees. The only way I know to get to that is natural sized cells.


----------



## fat/beeman (Aug 23, 2002)

Hello
martha you are to inbark on a tricky subject of treating or not treating. personaly I don't like chemicals un like most commercial breeders it makes good sense to breed for mite resistence. I don't make as much money or amounts of bees as do my other comm. breeders. I try to make less and a better grade of bee. as for the natural oils I use them to do all my treatments as does Daisy we might be the few but the proud.
you need to reserch what is best for you in your area. I have tried the sbb's for a yr on my hives never seen much diff. I make all my own equiptment so you also can do it and save a lot if your into experenting about.
find your self a local beekeeper to help you out. most are very helpful I am 62 and I think I learn something new every yr. good luck on you new hobby==Don


----------



## dcross (Jan 20, 2003)

Simple screened bottom board: Turn your bottom board 180 degrees, lay 8 mesh on top, then strips of scrap wood 3/4" thick on the sides and back.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2004)

> AFB is everywhere and is a stress disease. Try to prevent stress. 

This is a highly unusual claim. I know of no published work supporting
the conclusion that bees subjected to stress will develop AFB without
already having been exposed to the spores that cause AFB.
Where do the Bacillus larvae come from, if AFB is caused by "stress"?
Is this a case of spontaneous generation?









While it certainly is true that a colony under stress will be
less effective housekeepers, which can allow a small case of
AFB to get out of control, the trick is to detect AFB when
it is a "small scale problem", something that takes a good
eye (or a very good nose, like the Maryland dogs trained to 
detect [sniff out] AFB as they walk by the hives).

The best approach to any brood disease is to detect it early.
The MAAREC web site has very good photos of every common
pest and disease one might expect to find in North America,
and also addresses the use of approved treatments.
http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/pest&disease/pppdIndex.html 


> The Fumidil is for Nosema. Again, if you try to prevent stress and leave 
> them honey for the winter they will be less likely to get an outbreak. 

This is yet another highly speculative statement, one unsupported by
research. As Nosema is caused by a protozoa, "Nosema apis", it may
well be a function of water quality. As most "feeds" are mixed
with water, the blaming of "feed" may be a big clue that the beekeeper
has a well (or a really scary municipal water supply), and unwittingly 
introduces the protozoa with the water. Any decent water filter (even 
the kitchen-faucet "Brita" filters) will filter out something as large 
as protozoa.

> Nosema is everywhere and an outbreak is almost always after a long cold 
> spell where they bees can't fly and they've been eating sugar syrup.

Well, the acute symptoms (as shown by the "midgut test") are certainly
much easier to see with the naked eye if the bees have been unable to 
fly and void their feces outdoors, but if one has a microscope and does 
some examination of bee digestive tracts, one can find nosema outside of 
the narrow conditions claimed above, instantly disproving the claim. 
The whole "feed versus honey" thing is an issue of mere dogma, not a 
factor in any form of actual disease prevention and control.

> The purpose of the Essential oils is to boost the immune system of the bees. 

A promise that has yet to have been fulfilled, and one that simply cannot
be tested by anyone who can't tell Haemocytes from cytoplasm, which includes 
nearly all beekeepers, leading to people putting odiferous stuff in their hives, 
and ending up with "flavored honey". Folks at West Virginia U. tried long and
hard to find some practical application for essential oils, but aside from
"menthol for tracheal mites", which was well-known already, they simply proved
that essential oils don't do any harm, but don't do any good either.

There are LOTS of different viral infections of bees, but each is specific 
to the stage of development of the bee - chronic paralysis virus (CPV), 
acute paralysis virus (APV), and cloudy wing virus (CWV) attack adults only, 
while sacbrood virus (SBV) and black queen cell virus (BQCV) are potential 
larval stage problems. The most interesting mechanism by which the viruses 
are spread is via varroa acting like vampires. Dr. Mark Feldlaufer, who runs 
the USDA Beltsville Bee Lab, gave a very good presentation this fall on the work 
of Dr. Yanping Chen, which showed the direct relationship between the number 
of varroa in a cell, and the odds of the bee (and all the varroa) being 
infected with one or more viruses. She ran PCRs on SINGLE mites, so she 
tracked exactly which mites carried what viruses in which cells. 

> and they are useful in preventing the reproduction of the Tracheal mites 
> because they mask the odor of a "young" bee which is what the T-mites must 
> find to reproduce.

Menthol was never thought to "mask the odor". At first, menthol was thought 
to act as a fumigant, directly killing tracheal mites. The menthol crystals
were mixed with Crisco and made into patties to increase the vaporization of 
the menthol and obtain a continuous release of the menthol into the hive. 
It was later found that the menthol deserved only partial credit. The vegetable 
shortening in the "patties" were discovered to interfere with tracheal mite 
transfer between bees, making the menthol optional. Well-informed beekeepers 
put vegetable shortening patties (Crisco) in their hives.

> We had a man from Tongenoxie... only used chems when he really has to.

He understood >>THE<< key point of Integrated Pest Management. 

>>>>>One cannot manage that which they do not measure.<<<<

There seems to be a consistent misconception that "IPM" means using
some sort of all-natural, feel-good, new-age substance to "treat"
one's hives. This is simply not true. IPM is all about detecting
and tracking problems, and only treating those yards (or individual
hives) that show symptoms and clear evidence of problems. It matters
not if you use incense and crystals, or short-range tactical nuclear
weapons to "treat" your hives, what matters is that you know which
hives need to be treated, only treat where required, and track the 
impact of your treatment attempts on the problem.

To start tracking diseases, you need to steel yourself to "sampling"
bees from each yard or hive, and doing post mortems. This involves
killing bees, something that I still don't like, even after all these
years. Ether and a jar seem to be the most humane method. Then you
need to buy a cheap microscope (a kid's model is fine) and you need 
to learn how to pop the heads off bees and examine trachea, and how 
to remove the midgut, smear it on a slide and look for nosema. One 
of the many "sticky board" options are an absolute must, but these 
are useless without a regular schedule of USING THEM, counting 
"natural mite drop", and tracking the numbers over time.

The most important component of "IPM" is your notebook or spreadsheet,
or whatever you use to track your data. IPM is all about trends,
records, and comparing "now" to "before" or "same time last year".

> Personally I think the "dream" of any organic keeper is to be able to NOT treat 
> the bees. The only way I know to get to that is natural sized cells.

There is no single solution. 
There is no "silver bullet". 
The price of honey is eternal vigilance.

But, if you dislike treatments that are proven to work, or think 
that they are too "toxic", you can read about some of the ground 
breaking work my staff in Geneva is doing in the area of alternative
treatments here:

http://www.bee-quick.com/bee-quick/rpt2/ 

jim


----------



## Daisy (Jul 24, 2003)

I don't use fumes or terras.. We've discussed this topic many times here on beesource...

I can only imagine what you'll find if you use the search feature..

Here or in google...


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>This is a highly unusual claim. I know of no published work supporting
the conclusion that bees subjected to stress will develop AFB without
already having been exposed to the spores that cause AFB.

All bees are exposed to AFB spores ALL the time. They are everywhere and they live forever. Every old hive in every tree, every abondoned hive in every old barn. Every hive that died out from AFB when it first got here was FULL of spores and the bacteria manages to survive enough to make more spores in every hive even if the disease is not evident.

>Where do the Bacillus larvae come from, if AFB is caused by "stress"?
Is this a case of spontaneous generation? 

I certainly have never suggested spontaneous generation. I AM suggesting that the ROOT cause is stress. The opportunists to that stress are many and include AFB, EFB, Nosema etc. BTW it is no longer called Bacillus larvae and has officially been dubbed Paenibacillus larvae
http://ijs.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/1/270 

and EFB has been changed from Streptococcus pluton to Melissococcus pluton. 

AFB spores are found in any hive at any time. What causes an outbreak? If spores are everpresent then something else is the ultimate cause. The spores live forever.
http://www.beeculture.com/beeculture/months/01may/01may3.html search for stress
http://www.albertabeekeepers.org/Articles/Resistance%20Feb2002.htm search for stress
http://www.beeculture.com/beeculture/months/98nov/98nov1.html 


>While it certainly is true that a colony under stress will be
less effective housekeepers, which can allow a small case of
AFB to get out of control

One standard preventative has always been to have strong colonies. The theory is that a strong colony get's robbed less and therfore doesn't catch the disease from robbers, but in reality a strong colony is more likely to rob out weak hives, including those weakened by mites or AFB. Yet in spite of that the strong hives are much less likely to get AFB. Why?

>This is yet another highly speculative statement, one unsupported by
research.

I am not speculating. I saw the research quoted in a presentation at Beetopia in Lincoln, Nebraska this fall by Tom Webster. He said that research has shown that bees overwinter on honey get less nosema and bees overwitered on DARK honey get even less.

>As Nosema is caused by a protozoa, "Nosema apis", it may well be a function of water quality.

That I don't know, but Tom's presenation said the spores are basiclly in all hives all the time in some amount.

>Well, the acute symptoms (as shown by the "midgut test") are certainly
much easier to see with the naked eye if the bees have been unable to 
fly and void their feces outdoors, but if one has a microscope and does 
some examination of bee digestive tracts, one can find nosema outside of 
the narrow conditions claimed above, instantly disproving the claim. 

Nosema can be found even when the gut is not white and distended yes. And this disproves what? Certainly bees can get a noseam outbreak anytime they are stressed, but it seems to happen most often after a long spell of being confined. This was also in Tom Websters presentation on research on Nosema.

Chech these sites and search for nosema and then search for stress.
http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~vista/html_pubs/BEEKEEP/CHAPT7/CHAPT7.TXT 
http://www.carlislehoney.com/treatments.htm 

>The whole "feed versus honey" thing is an issue of mere dogma, not a 
factor in any form of actual disease prevention and control.

I got it from a bee scientist, but if you want to consider it dogma that is your perogative.

> The purpose of the Essential oils is to boost the immune system of the bees. 

A promise that has yet to have been fulfilled, and one that simply cannot
be tested by anyone who can't tell Haemocytes from cytoplasm, which includes 
nearly all beekeepers, leading to people putting odiferous stuff in their hives, 
and ending up with "flavored honey". Folks at West Virginia U. tried long and
hard to find some practical application for essential oils, but aside from
"menthol for tracheal mites", which was well-known already, they simply proved
that essential oils don't do any harm, but don't do any good either.

I don't use any currently but have used them in the past.

Here are some studies. For whatever they are worth:
http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~vista/html_pubs/BEEKEEP/CHAPT7/CHAPT7.TXT 
http://www.carlislehoney.com/treatments.htm 
http://www.hereintown.net/~jkahl/sare.htm 
http://www.caf.wvu.edu/wvafes/projects2000/plant/WVA00317.htm 


>There are LOTS of different viral infections of bees, but each is specific 
to the stage of development of the bee - chronic paralysis virus (CPV), 
acute paralysis virus (APV), and cloudy wing virus (CWV) attack adults only, 
while sacbrood virus (SBV) and black queen cell virus (BQCV) are potential 
larval stage problems. The most interesting mechanism by which the viruses 
are spread is via varroa acting like vampires. Dr. Mark Feldlaufer, who runs 
the USDA Beltsville Bee Lab, gave a very good presentation this fall on the work 
of Dr. Yanping Chen, which showed the direct relationship between the number 
of varroa in a cell, and the odds of the bee (and all the varroa) being 
infected with one or more viruses. She ran PCRs on SINGLE mites, so she 
tracked exactly which mites carried what viruses in which cells. 

Certainly. That's one of the reasons some people use the essential oils to help the bees survive the viruses.

>Menthol was never thought to "mask the odor". At first, menthol was thought 
to act as a fumigant, directly killing tracheal mites. The menthol crystals
were mixed with Crisco and made into patties to increase the vaporization of 
the menthol and obtain a continuous release of the menthol into the hive. 
It was later found that the menthol deserved only partial credit. The vegetable 
shortening in the "patties" were discovered to interfere with tracheal mite 
transfer between bees, making the menthol optional. Well-informed beekeepers 
put vegetable shortening patties (Crisco) in their hives.

Many are now afraid to use the grease patties because of the SHB. I figure the SHB are attracted to beehives with or without the grease patties. Many of the grease patties come with wintergreen or spearmint or pepper mint essential oils. I have not heard of people who are still putting menthol in the patties, but perhaps some do. Most seem to use the mentol on either shop towels or some other method of distribution of the vapor. I did not mean to imply that menthol was used to cover the odor. The grease patties, however do just that they make all the bees smell the same and the mites can't find the young bees and some believe the essential oils contribute to that effect. I'd have to spend more time to see if there is any research that the essential oils DO contribute to the effect of covering the smell. Since I'm not currently using them, it's not that big of a deal to me. The FGMO fog kills them fine.

>>>>>One cannot manage that which they do not measure.<<<<

A point I try to make all the time.

>There seems to be a consistent misconception that "IPM" means using
some sort of all-natural, feel-good, new-age substance to "treat"
one's hives. This is simply not true. IPM is all about detecting
and tracking problems, and only treating those yards (or individual
hives) that show symptoms and clear evidence of problems. It matters
not if you use incense and crystals, or short-range tactical nuclear
weapons to "treat" your hives, what matters is that you know which
hives need to be treated, only treat where required, and track the 
impact of your treatment attempts on the problem.

It does matter to some of us what we put in our hives. If for no other reason than I eat what comes out of my hives.

>To start tracking diseases, you need to steel yourself to "sampling"
bees from each yard or hive, and doing post mortems. This involves
killing bees, something that I still don't like, even after all these
years. Ether and a jar seem to be the most humane method. Then you
need to buy a cheap microscope (a kid's model is fine) and you need 
to learn how to pop the heads off bees and examine trachea, and how 
to remove the midgut, smear it on a slide and look for nosema. One 
of the many "sticky board" options are an absolute must, but these 
are useless without a regular schedule of USING THEM, counting 
"natural mite drop", and tracking the numbers over time.

A microscope is the only SURE way to know it's nosema or Tracheal mites. But most of us get by without one. I ALWAYS recommend doing drop counts on mites constantly to monitor the effectiveness of whatever you decide to use. EVEN if it's Apistan or Check-mite.

>> Personally I think the "dream" of any organic keeper is to be able to NOT treat 
>> the bees. The only way I know to get to that is natural sized cells.

>There is no single solution. 
>There is no "silver bullet". 
>The price of honey is eternal vigilance.

I know of a lot of beekeepers are are keeping bees in exactly that way. No chemicals treatments, no FGMO, no organic acids. And their solution is small cell comb, honey and pollen for feed, and disease resistant stock. That is not a single solution, but it is a self sustainable system for the bees.

>But, if you dislike treatments that are proven to work, or think 
that they are too "toxic"

Exactly why most of us are here and exactly what the lady was pursuing was alternatives to things that she considers too toxic.

The last time I tried Apistan it did not work. The last time a friend tried Check-mite it looked like a pesticide kill. There are a lot of people using alternatives that are working. I DON'T see that the "proven" methods are working any better.

If the lady had asked what the "conventional" treatments for things were, I would have told her that. But that was not what she was seeking, so it was not what I offered.

In the course of my life I have seen alot of things that were considered a "proven scientific fact" later disproved. It was common when I was born to do X-Ray's of mothers. The mothers were assured that all the research "proved" it was harmless to the baby. So was Thalidimide. Phen-fen had passed all the scientific research that it was safe to use. If some of us are skeptical as to the conclusions of "science" and to the "real" toxicity and ramifications of chemical treatments it is not without basis nor is without precedence.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I have to say it's the story of my life that people on both sides of a fence think always think I'm on the other side. I think Daisy probably thinks I'm to "scientific" when I point out that floride is in all natural water, sometimes in amounts higher than the municipalities add to theirs. And Mr. Fischer thinks I'm too "ethereal" or "New Age". Personally I don't buy into anything until I've tried it myself no matter what the science or what other evidence.

I'm amazed how often people assume because something isn't in the mainstream it therefore has not been researched.

Also, how often just because something has not been researched at all they assume it's not true.

Vitamins being used to keep people healthy and treat stress was popular among the "health food" people for decades before the doctors finally acknowledged that they were good for something besides treating scurvy and ricketts. The doctors a few decades ago would do the old quote that it hadn't been proven, implying that it proved it didn't work.

As for natural methods of disease and mite control, there are many people using many methods and succeeding. I don't consider this scietific proof, but it is enough evidence for me to investigate and try some of those things.

As for statments I make, I never make them unless I've read it in some scientific journal or another or have experienced it myself. But I have to admit I don't always remember where I read it. It used to be sufficient for MY needs to just remember the information. Now, I need to make better notes because people are constantly questioning the concepts.


----------



## kamerrill (Sep 17, 2003)

Hi Martha,

In terms of SBB I just went ahead and retrofitted all of my old bottom boards by doing the following.
1) cut a square hole in the BB with a jig saw and cover with 8/8 hardware cloth
2) add some 3/4" X 1" pine strips to the bottom that have a 1/4 dado cut in them to accept a sliding plywood tray
3) cut a 1/4 inch plywood tray that you can put something sticky on

Pictures of one that I made are here (this is a test website of mine): http://users.adelphia.net/~kamerrill/Honeyhouse2.htm


----------



## rayvin37 (Dec 30, 2003)

heres a Humm?? for ya
From MB
> The purpose of the Essential oils is to boost the immune system of the bees. 

From Jeff
A promise that has yet to have been fulfilled, and one that simply cannot
be tested by anyone who can't tell Haemocytes from cytoplasm, which includes 
nearly all beekeepers, leading to people putting odiferous stuff in their hives, 
and ending up with "flavored honey". Folks at West Virginia U. tried long and
hard to find some practical application for essential oils, but aside from
"menthol for tracheal mites", which was well-known already, they simply proved
that essential oils don't do any harm, but don't do any good either.

From I WHAT web page.(Jeffs page)
Anyone who makes candles from their wax may have heard of aromatherapy, and perhaps some beekeepers may be adding scents to the candles to serve the needs of aromatherapists. In brief, aromatherapy is based upon the link between certain odors and certain moods they create. The essential oils from plants used in aromatherapy have been described as their "life force" - they are essential to the plants' biological process, as well as being the substance which gives them their scent. 
Bees are very sensitive to aromas, and thus can be helped by even miniscule treatments, at very low cost to the beekeeper. Our aromatherapy kit for bees consists of 20 different 10ml bottles of different essential oils, which should last most beekeepers for more than a lifetime. 

Humm?
LOL ok i get it the i what web page is just a joke huh ? lol had me going i am so gullable sometimes lol

[This message has been edited by rayvin37 (edited February 29, 2004).]


----------



## Guest (Feb 29, 2004)

> BTW it is no longer called Bacillus larvae and has 
> officially been dubbed Paenibacillus larvae...

Yeah... my fingers often type faster than my
memory can keep up with. 

> AFB spores are found in any hive at any time.

But gee, how'd they get there?
Even when the gear is new, and the bees came in a package? 

> Tom Webster... said that research has shown that bees overwinter 
> on honey get less nosema and bees overwitered on DARK honey get 
> even less.

I saw him give what I assume to be the same presentation on how
nosema is much more common than people think at the TN state
meeting, also last fall. I think that he would be much less
emphatic if he were asked about this, and I suspect that he 
would have no answer if asked to explain the mechanics of how 
nosema is supposed to be prevented or reduced through doing 
exactly what has been and is done most often in most hives, 
which is to leave the darker "fall crop" as feed for wintering.

> Tom's presenation said the spores are basiclly in all hives 
> all the time in some amount

Again, where did the spores come from in the first place? 
Sometimes simple questions can be very revealing.

> And this disproves what? 

Disproves the claim that "dark honey" can somehow "cure" or
prevent nosema. My point is that correlation is not causation.
If "dark honey" prevented/cured nosema, then there would never
be a feral colony with nosema, would there? And nosema would
have never existed about a century ago when "feeding" bees was
almost unheard of, would it? I hope you now understand why I 
question what you say he said.

> I got it from a bee scientist, but if you want to consider 
> it dogma that is your perogative.

I honestly can't imagine Dr. Webster saying that at your meeting,
and not at the TN meeting, giving the same presentation. So while 
I am sure that you are honestly repeating what you thought you 
heard, I'm not at all that what you think you heard is what he 
said (or meant to say). And if it will make you happy, you 
can call me "Dr. Fischer", but I'm just "jim" to all my friends.

> It does matter to some of us what we put in our hives. 
> If for no other reason than I eat what comes out of my hives.

It matters even more to someone like me. Just try selling some
of your honey to the Europeans sometime.







Why do you THINK 
I bought an HPLC/MS? I have to know if there are parts-per-trillion 
of something or other in my honey from my bees foraging on blooms
along the roads that might have been sprayed by a state highway
crew without my knowledge. I think we have gotten to the point 
where we have to park our trucks 1/4 mile from the hives and walk 
into the yards, so as to keep the exhaust fumes from contaminating
the honey at 2 ppt. (I'm only joking a tiny little bit here.)

> A microscope is the only SURE way to know it's nosema or 
> Tracheal mites. But most of us get by without one.

Then you missed a VERY BIG point that Tom Webster made, at least 
at the TN meeting. His point was that naked-eye survey had
far too many "false negtives" to be a reliable test for nosema. 
I agree with him on this 100%. Seen it with my own eyes for years.

> And their solution is small cell comb, honey and pollen for feed, 
> and disease resistant stock. That is not a single solution, but 
> it is a self sustainable system for the bees.

My problem is that people get all excited about these things, 
talk about them a lot, and then simply disappear from view after 
a year or three. And then I talk with the big boys, the guys
with thousands of hives, and I ask them what THEY think about
this apparently much lower-cost way of keeping bees, and I
get snorts and hoots, and get told that I have "such a great
sense of humor". So these guys are what? Ignorant? Stubborn?
And then I talk to the researchers, and ask them if they want
me to write them a check and fund some research on this stuff,
and they smile, and say "thanks", but they'd rather do research
that will result in benifits to beekeepers.

I have too much money tied up in "bees", and too many pollination 
contracts to perform every spring to risk more than a few hives
on "speculative" approaches.

> The last time I tried Apistan it did not work. 

Then you have "resistant" mites. At last we have Api-Life
and Surose Octante, so there are now appoved treatments that
can be alternated with Apistan.

> The last time a friend tried Check-mite...

Organophosphates? No thank you. I'd sooner burn my hives
and raise wax moths for fishing bait.

> I DON'T see that the "proven" methods are working any better.

I'll Call. Read 'em and weep. I have 187 thriving hives. 
I started fall with 188. Thats a 99.5% survival rate. 
Seems to be working fine ("steady as she goes, Mr. Sulu").

The one colony I lost was a simple case of starvation. No idea 
why it went through its stores so quickly, maybe it was skipped 
when hives were being helfted. Feeding would have saved it.
The "proven methods" are called "proven" for a reason.
It is not the PRODUCT, as much as the "method", which includes
taking care to follow proper procedures and track results.

> It was common when I was born to do X-Ray's of mothers. 

It was worse than that - Shoe stores in the early 1960s
had X-Ray machines for seeing if your foot really fit in
their shoes! While I rarely need a night-light for bedtime 
reading, the bad news is that I just can't win a game of 
hide and seek with the kids after dark.









> If some of us are skeptical as to the conclusions of "science"...
> ... it is not without basis nor is without precedence.

Let me make sure I understand:

a) On the issue of "Dark Honey and nosema", you 
make a classic "appeal to authority", tossing 
around Tom Webster's name without any actual quotes 
of his exact words on the subject at hand, and 
chiding me for daring to be skeptical of ONE study.

b) On some other issues, you claim to be "skeptical of 
science", apparently as a whole.

So I'm not allowed to be skeptical about one study, 
even when I have specific questions that I can pose 
in words of one sylable?

Yet you want to dismiss the consensus view of a very
large group of folks in an offhand manner, citing only
anecdotal reports over short periods of time?

Perhaps you can understand my confusion, but I'm not sure 
how to approach such an inconsistent view of the value of 
science as a basis for understanding the tangible.


----------



## Daisy (Jul 24, 2003)

I enjoyed this string, very interesting.

And, Thanks M Fisher...

I haven't lost any hives this year. I used mint eo's and patties using olive oil..

MB, I read and understand what you're saying about floride etc. and I still avoid it when I can. 

I am being forced to take medicine (floride) without a doctors prescription in the water that I use for drink, food and bathing.. I'm allowed no choice. This bothers me. I have not missed your point... Don't get me wrong but I do not see the need to my body for the municiple water plants to pour this stuff into my water supply. I have no choice. I can't get unflorinated water into my home. 

Why are they adding floride to our water supply? 

Well we've gone over this, no need to keep at it...

I will continue to offer plain ole water to my bees little watering hole. They learned where this water hole sits and frequent that little shaded spot continuously. I know they're getting the cleanest water possible and with whatever minerals I think they need. 

Call me goofy. LOL


----------



## Guest (Feb 29, 2004)

> I am being forced to take medicine (floride)...
> Don't get me wrong but I do not see the need to 
> my body for the municiple water plants to pour 
> this stuff into my water supply. I have no choice. 
> I can't get unflorinated water into my home. 

As is true in nearly all the developed nations.

> Why are they adding floride to our water supply? 

To prevent what happened to me from being a nationwide
problem. I spent lots of sailing from one island to 
another in my teens and 20s, living the life that
Jimmy Buffet only sang about. As a result, I need to 
swap out nearly every tooth in my mouth at 45. Blame 
a decade of chewing betel nuts with the locals, and 
drinking non-fluorinated water.

But there is some evidence that fluoride is bad for 
your bees, and a whole pile that says that chlorine
is a very bad idea, but fluoride and chlorine are
easy to block with any decent water filter.

Here's what I said in: http://www.beeculture.com/beeculture/SugarReprint.pdf 

"While adding water slows the crystallization process, untreated
water can contain bacteria that can cause the syrup to ferment 
or become rancid. The good news is that chlorine or chloramine
in municipal water will kill the bacteria, but the bad news is 
that fluoride in municipal water is said to be toxic to bees over 
time. Water filters can block most of the fluoride and the chlorine 
or chloramine. (Yes, even water requires considerable thought
in beekeeping.)"

A strange sensation - I'm quoting... myself.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

You ARE goofy, Daisy, and it's one of the nice things about you. You're also creative. You've come up with one of the best methods for stopping robbing that I've found.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>> AFB spores are found in any hive at any time. But gee, how'd they get there?
>Even when the gear is new, and the bees came in a package? 
You have staphylococcus bacteria in every human abode. Even if its new and even if the people came in a very clean ambulance. How did it get there? Life. The environment is full of it. How do AFB spores get in a hive? They live forever. Bees investigate every place that bees in the preceding hundreds of years have bee. There are spores there.
>> Tom Webster... said that research has shown that bees overwinter 
>> on honey get less nosema and bees overwitered on DARK honey get 
>> even less. 
>I think that he would be much less
emphatic if he were asked about this, and I suspect that he 
would have no answer if asked to explain the mechanics of how 
nosema is supposed to be prevented or reduced through doing 
exactly what has been and is done most often in most hives, 
which is to leave the darker "fall crop" as feed for wintering. 
He was NOT emphatic about it. I certainly did not mean to imply that he was. He was almost apologetic about it. He WAS asked about the mechanics of it and he had no answer. I have explained all of this previously in other posts. He also had no explanation as to the mechanics of why darker honey was better than lighter honey.
Statistical observations are very useful. A mechanism is nice, but to ignore a statistical connection is just as foolish as confusing cause with effect. Certainly it would nice to know a mechanism to avoid the problem of post hoc ergo proctor hoc but sometimes you dont have all the answers but you have a piece of useful information. http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/medicine/history/notes/surgery/ 
In 1773 Gordon recommended cleanliness in labour wards and in 1846 Ignaz P.Semmelweiss [image], Hungary, faced a 10-30% mortality in puerperal women particularly if delivered by doctors rather than midwives. He noted that doctors came from autopsies to the deliveries and reasoned that they spread contagion - he insisted on hand washing and dropped the mortality to 1%. However his work was ridiculed and he lost his reason.
Here a connection had been made statistically but the mechanism was unknown. Because he didnt have a mechanism he was ridiculed out of the medical profession. Later Pasteur came up with the mechanism. But meanwhile a lot of women died needlessly in childbirth.
Just because we dont know the MECHANISM of why honey for winter feed cuts down on Nosema is no reason not to USE this information.
> Tom's presenation said the spores are basiclly in all hives 
> all the time in some amount 
>Again, where did the spores come from in the first place? 
>Sometimes simple questions can be very revealing. 
We live in a sea of microorganisms. That is reality.
>> And this disproves what? 
>Disproves the claim that "dark honey" can somehow "cure" or
prevent nosema.
I have made no claim that dark honey can cure nosema. I have merely offered to someone who wishes NOT to use chemicals a method that will CONTRIBUTE to the prevention of nosema. As to the POSSIBLE reasons that honey is better, there is the pH difference between honey and syrup. There is the antimicrobial properties of honey. There are a lot of things in honey in small amounts that MIGHT be the reason.
>My point is that correlation is not causation.
If "dark honey" prevented/cured nosema, then there would never
be a feral colony with nosema, would there? And nosema would
have never existed about a century ago when "feeding" bees was
almost unheard of, would it? I hope you now understand why I 
question what you say he said. 
I never said it prevented or cured it I said that bees eating honey get nosema less. Whether this is causative, has not been proven, but since one has to be the cause and one the effect, its hard to imagine that less Nosema is the cause of the honey. Nosema has always existed. If nosema was such a deadly disease than all the bees would have died centuries ago. They survived in feral colonies eating just honey and pollen without any Fumidil. So you see why I question the requirement of feeding Fumidil?
>I honestly can't imagine Dr. Webster saying that at your meeting,
and not at the TN meeting, giving the same presentation. So while 
I am sure that you are honestly repeating what you thought you 
heard, I'm not at all that what you think you heard is what he 
said (or meant to say). 
And I dont think you have heard what I said at all either. I think you have read a lot into what *I* said. 
>And if it will make you happy, you 
can call me "Dr. Fischer", but I'm just "jim" to all my friends. 
Doctor of what?
>> It does matter to some of us what we put in our hives. 
>> If for no other reason than I eat what comes out of my hives. 
>> A microscope is the only SURE way to know it's nosema or 
>> Tracheal mites. But most of us get by without one. 
>Then you missed a VERY BIG point that Tom Webster made, at least 
at the TN meeting. His point was that naked-eye survey had
far too many "false negtives" to be a reliable test for nosema. 
I agree with him on this 100%. Seen it with my own eyes for years. 
I DO agree with him. You cant know that you do or do not have Nosema without the microscope. I think its a good idea to monitor everything. However, if Im not going to use fumidil, its not all that revealing to know if its Nosema or simple dysentery. Either way I will be doing the same thing.
>> And their solution is small cell comb, honey and pollen for feed, 
>> and disease resistant stock. That is not a single solution, but 
>> it is a self sustainable system for the bees. 
>My problem is that people get all excited about these things, 
talk about them a lot, and then simply disappear from view after 
a year or three. And then I talk with the big boys, the guys
with thousands of hives, and I ask them what THEY think about
this apparently much lower-cost way of keeping bees, and I
get snorts and hoots, and get told that I have "such a great
sense of humor". So these guys are what? Ignorant? Stubborn?
I dont think I ever met a beekeeper who wasnt stubborn. It is a very big expense to convert a large commercial operation to small cell. They dont want to make that kind of investment until they are sure of a payoff. So you get lots of snorts and hoots from people who have never tried something. That sounds normal to me.
I know a lot of people who are doing it. While I have heard people talk about FGMO working or not working, I have not heard anyone doing small cell who said it wasnt working for them.
My observations with EHB correlate with the observations of this study of AHB. I have seen capping times of 24 hours early and post capping times of 24 hours early. This is a very significant change in the number of mites infesting a cell and a very significant change in the number of mites reproducing in the cell. http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm 
According to the mathematical model in this study that is significant enough to get the mites under control. See the section on post capping times. http://www.csl.gov.uk/science/organ/environ/bee/varroa/ModellingBiologicalApproaches.pdf 
>And then I talk to the researchers, and ask them if they want
me to write them a check and fund some research on this stuff,
and they smile, and say "thanks", but they'd rather do research
that will result in benifits to beekeepers. 
Dont you find it strange that they arent even interested in researching it? I think youd be surprised at how many people are doing small cell and succeeding. 
>I have too much money tied up in "bees", and too many pollination 
contracts to perform every spring to risk more than a few hives
on "speculative" approaches. 
And I, for one, am certainly not asking you to.
>> The last time I tried Apistan it did not work. 
>Then you have "resistant" mites. At last we have Api-Life
and Surose Octante, so there are now appoved treatments that
can be alternated with Apistan. 
Yes I did have resistant mites. And that is always the end result of all of the chemical games.
>> The last time a friend tried Check-mite... 
>Organophosphates? No thank you. I'd sooner burn my hives
and raise wax moths for fishing bait. 
But this is an approved treatment! This is backed by science! Approved by the EPA and the FDA! Why the sudden change of heart? Do you not always trust the science? Are you sometimes skeptical of science and sometimes have faith in it?
>> I DON'T see that the "proven" methods are working any better. 
>I'll Call. Read 'em and weep. I have 187 thriving hives. 
I started fall with 188. Thats a 99.5% survival rate. 
Seems to be working fine ("steady as she goes, Mr. Sulu"). 
Im certainly not going to weep. Im happy for you. But there are also a lot of people using the chemicals with far less success and a lot of people using alternative methods who are both succeeding and sometimes failing.
>> If some of us are skeptical as to the conclusions of "science"...
>> ... it is not without basis nor is without precedence. 
>Let me make sure I understand: 
>a) On the issue of "Dark Honey and nosema", you 
make a classic "appeal to authority", tossing 
around Tom Webster's name without any actual quotes 
of his exact words on the subject at hand, and 
chiding me for daring to be skeptical of ONE study. 
You are welcome to be skeptical of anything you want. But dont accuse me of making this up or deriving it from meditation.
>b) On some other issues, you claim to be "skeptical of 
science", apparently as a whole. 
Apparently is your interpretation. I find that what is actually done in studies is very useful to our overall knowledge. However, its obvious from past observation, that the conclusions that are drawn by the scientists are often wrong and even often fatal.
>So I'm not allowed to be skeptical about one study, 
even when I have specific questions that I can pose 
in words of one sylable? 
You are most certainly allowed to be skeptical of anything you like.
>Yet you want to dismiss the consensus view of a very
large group of folks in an offhand manner, citing only
anecdotal reports over short periods of time? 
I am not dismissing anyones view. You are certainly entitled to yours. A lot of beekeepers on this board, and from observation in my last 30 years in beekeeping, most beekeepers do not like using complex chemical pesticides and antibiotics in our hives.
>Perhaps you can understand my confusion, but I'm not sure 
how to approach such an inconsistent view of the value of 
science as a basis for understanding the tangible.
It appears to me that you have quickly classified me and have not bothered to understand my view at all. The use of quotations above were not an accident. Im quite fond of the scientific method. It has its problems. The biggest of which is trying to take into account the complexities of reality while proving one aspect of that reality. Trying to isolate a particular thing without changing something else is difficult. But I have always been in favor of testing things and proving things rather than taking the conventional wisdom as gospel.

My problem with science is just that problem. Looking at one small aspect in a small sample over a short period of time does not prove what the long-term effects of that will be. Science has often proven to have been wrong when basing long term predictions of safety and efficacy on a short term, small sample study. Quite often the sample is too small to be statistically significant. Quite often the period of time is too short to be statistically significant. Quite often the reality of the situation is more complex than the study takes into account and the researchers arent really trying to work out the relationships of those complex factors.

An example of the complexities and some researchers taking them into account would be the recent research at the University of Nebraska on powdered sugar for mite control. The premise was that since the powdered sugar roll in a jar with a cup of bees gets 90% of the mites you could do the same with the whole hive and get 90% of the mites.

When they attempted this they found they were only getting a small amount of the mites. So they could have ended there and said that powdered sugar doesnt work. Instead they tried to figure out why the results of the sugar roll were so much more effective and looked for all the differences. Several more experiments were necessary to figure out the differences. The success of the treatment was all in the details. Many research projects stop short and just conclude that the previous research was wrong and dont try to figure out where in the details the difference was.

People often get stuck on a concept that has been proven and are not willing to let go of that to find out if its really true. Often to move on we have to let go. The indestructibility of matter was the corner stone of modern chemistry and is how we got from alchemy to being able to manipulate the world in many ways that we could not before. However, we had to let go of that to move on into nuclear physics. The reality is that matter is NOT indestructible. But if I were to suggest that before the nuclear age I would have been forced out of the scientific community. Newtonian physics was a very useful paradigm for predicting and controlling many things. But in the end we had to let go of it to have relative physics.

Back to my original reason for my original post. I was trying to tell someone interested in alternatives to the chemicals, what we, who are using alternatives to the chemicals, are using. If you would prefer me to present the conventional view of conventional chemicals I could just as easily do that. But you seem to already know that and that was not her question. That information is easily found in many books. The information I have found here on this forum on how to get back to raising bees without pesticides and antibiotics is harder to dig out and not as readily available.

The biggest problem most of us face are the Varroa mites.

I have told everyone on this board time and time again to monitor everything you can and see if what you are doing is working for you or not. Doing counts on your mite drops is essential NO MATTER WHAT METHOD YOU USE. I learned that from the Apistan. I only used it because I didnt know what else to use and it worked for a few years. But I was not aware of when it failed. If WE (obviously you dont) want to use alternatives we still have to monitor. The success or failure of any method is in the details and without feedback you cant know if you are succeeding or failing.

Blind faith is not a terribly useful Varroacide.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Dr. Fischer, or may I call you Jim?

The most irritating thing about our conversation so far is your constant rewriting of what I say. For some reason, rather than address what I say, you keep addressing what you think I am implying. I assure you, I am saying what I mean and not meaning to imply anything. Here are a few examples from the recent conversation:

I said:
"The Terramycin is a preventative for AFB. AFB is everywhere and is a stress disease. Try to prevent stress. If you get AFB you will be faced with the hard choice to burn the hive(s) with AFB or treat depending on the laws in your state and your choices. 


You said I said:
"This is a highly unusual claim. I know of no published work supporting the conclusion that bees subjected to stress will develop AFB without already having been exposed to the spores that cause AFB. Where do the Bacillus larvae come from, if AFB is caused by "stress"? Is this a case of spontaneous generation?"

Where did I imply or say anything about a lack of AFB spores? Where did I imply or say that AFB was caused by spontaneous generation? I basically stated that the bees WILL be exposed to AFB because it is in the environment, not that the spores would appear spontaneously. If you wish to discuss how widespread the AFB spores are, that would be addressed in an entirely different manner than implying that I have an irrational belief in spontaneous generation.

I said:
"The Fumidil is for Nosema. Again, if you try to prevent stress and leave them honey for the winter they will be less likely to get an outbreak."

You said I said:
"the claim that "dark honey" can somehow "cure" or prevent nosema."

Where did I say anything more than what Tom Webster said in his presentation? Where did I use the term "cure" or the term "prevent"? I said "leave them honey for the winter they will be LESS LIKELY to get an outbreak." and this is precisely no more or less than Tom Webster said. You changed what I said, added what you thought I implied and tried to instead discuss the implication that you added. Believe me I chose those words quite carefully. Again, for those who are unwilling to put fumidil in their hive these are the things they can do to reduce the risk of nosema some.

I said:
NOTHING ON THIS SUBJECT AT ALL

You said I said:
"Yet you want to dismiss the consensus view of a very large group of folks in an offhand manner, citing only anecdotal reports over short periods of time?"

When did I dismiss any view of anyone? I have merely presented my view (and the view of many others). It was also the perspective that the original question was asked from, which was how to avoid chemicals. You have again jumped to conclusion that I do not respect your opinion. But I most assuredly understand and respect all your opinions. I simply don't entirely agree with all of them.

I would appreciate in the future, if we choose to continue this discussion if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth and implying things I did not say nor did I intend to say or imply. If you would instead discuss what I SAID instead of what you THINK I said, it would be much easier and less stressful for both of us.


----------



## Daisy (Jul 24, 2003)

M Fisher, Could you provide me with any other developed country that is adding floride into their water supplies?

It's use has been banned in Europe. We are about the only country left using it....

It does not prevent carries...

With all due respect....

MB, Consider yourself hugged...


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Here is a listing of vitimans and their amounts and the symptoms of to little or too much
http://www.geocities.com/1Leighann/Vitamins1.html 

1.0 - 2.0 ppm is what they bring the amount up to in floridated water. My well water, without any added is about 0.5 ppm. Some places have naturally occuring amounts higher than 2.0 ppm and have to remove it. If you lowered the amount of floride allowed in water then all the municiplaities would have to remove it from the natural water.

This is the conspiracy theory on it.
http://www.nofluoride.com/ http://members.aol.com/johnhga286/wakeup9.htm http://www.fluoridation.com/ http://www.enn.com/direct/display-release.asp?objid=D1D1364E000000F31139E7E76C7308FB http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/01/113492.php 

The conspiracy theory of the conspiracy theory. (or maybe the truth?)
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html 

My dentist is certainly a believer in using floride. He would say that he can pretty much tell by their teeth if someone lived in a community with floride in the water or not. But according to him it is also true that it only really matters for the first year or two of life and not at all after that.


----------



## scsasdsa (Jan 23, 2004)

sounds to as if someone likes to argue or is not reading the whole story, speed reading and controversy do not go together.Get the whole story and speak your mind. never mind what he said she said what is your opinion? state it in no uncertain terms and let it alone. Those of us who read this for fun and info will read into it what we will and use and believe what we will.

stuart


----------



## Daisy (Jul 24, 2003)

http://www.honeycouncil.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=1157 

Martha, notice the letters next to the thymol in the graph ?? whatever that is at the bottom.....

It takes care of just about everything....

I used the oil patties last year. I won't know what they'll need this year yet.


----------



## Daisy (Jul 24, 2003)

MB, thanks for the links...

I will say that I don't ascribe to anything listed on quackwatch... Follow the money trail.....

I could go off on dentistry industry but I'll let that one slide for now......


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The honey council saying that essential oils work? What's next? Meditation? (Just kidding).

You will notice a lot of them list AFB as one of the things that essential oils are working against. Keep in mind this is because of the antimicrobial properties of these oils, but only on the active bacteria in the brood. The AFB spores are pretty much indestructable under any circumstances that bees can survive.

It seems resonable, but no one seems to have researched it that some of these animicrobial properties could be useful against nosema and chalkbrood and other things cause by various microbes. When they are in the feed the bees are ingesting them and the brood is being fed them. Some oils keep the syrup from getting mold in it and may help prevent the fungus that causes chalkbrood. I've had fairly thin syrup with wintergreen oil in it for a year and it never molded or fermented.


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2004)

> rather than address what I say, you keep addressing what you think I am implying. 

I'm sorry that you feel that way. The questions are rephrased below.
Answer if you please.

> I said:
>>> "The Terramycin is a preventative for AFB. 
>>> AFB is everywhere and is a stress disease. 

> You said:
>> "This is a highly unusual claim. I know of no published work supporting the conclusion 
>> that bees subjected to stress will develop AFB without already having been exposed to 
>> the spores that cause AFB. Where do the Bacillus larvae come from, if AFB is caused by 
>> "stress"? Is this a case of spontaneous generation?"

> Where did I imply or say anything about a lack of AFB spores? 

My question was very very simple. I'll ask it again.

If "AFB is everywhere", as you claim, then where did it come from?
How did it get there?

If bees started in new equipment and foundation in areas known to lack bees 
(used in research for "isolation testing" of newly-imported stock) can get 
AFB, then I might agree with your claim that "AFB is everywhere". In fact,
I am led to understand that the consensus view is that AFB is most often 
spread by much more simple mechanisms:

a) A weak colony fails to be "hygienic", and AFB gets out of hand.
(The spores are assumed to present in this hive due to sloppy 
practices, most often the re-use of brood chambers and combs
from prior deadouts, without any attempt sterilization of some 
sort, such as scorching, paraffin dipping, whatever).

b) The weak colony gets robbed out, spreading the AFB to other hives.

c) The cycle repeats, weak hives being robbed, spreading AFB.

That's the most plausible explanation possible, now that the impact
of the beekeeper has been studied, and it has been realized that
spreading AFB is very difficult to do with a hive tool. (Regardless,
one is well-served by keeping a very clean hive tool, and cleaning it
between opening each hive.)

> Where did I imply or say that AFB was caused by spontaneous generation? 

It was a joke. It was a refutation of your flat statement that
"AFB is everywhere and is a stress disease." It was an attempt
to gently point out that if beekeepers become convinced that merely 
"preventing stress" (a highly subjective metric, one nearly impossible 
to measure) will prevent AFB, this will result in more cases of AFB 
that get out of control.

> I basically stated that the bees WILL be exposed to AFB because it is in 
> the environment, 

I also question this specific claim.

>...an irrational belief in spontaneous generation.

And when/where did I claim that belief in spontaneous generation 
was "irrational"? Isn't this the crime I am accused of committing?

I simply asked if this was the explanation for AFB spores being "everywhere",
as I could think of no other way for such spores to be "everywhere", or
even "in the environment" in sufficient quantity and universal distribution
to be able to be encountered by a bee.

> I said:
> "The Fumidil is for Nosema. Again, if you try to prevent stress and leave 
> them honey for the winter they will be less likely to get an outbreak."

> Where did I say anything more than what Tom Webster said in his presentation? 

I don't know what Tom said to your group, or what you think Tom said. I only 
know what I heard Tom say at a different meeting, and what is on the tape I 
made of his talk. (Yeah, I got it all on tape. That's why I'm so sure of what
he did and did not say at the TN meeting.)

> I said "leave them honey for the winter they will be LESS LIKELY 
> to get an outbreak." 

Then do you or don't you think that honey (or, as you said elsewhere, "dark honey") 
has any impact on (and, thereby is responsible for a lower incidence of nosema)? 

> You changed what I said, 

If you feel that my questions were "changing" rather than attempts to clarify
and simplify your statements, then we apparently have very different understandings
of the pathology of diseases like AFB and nosema. I was trying to take your statements
and fit them into existing models of bee disease pathology, nothing more.

> You said I said:
> "Yet you want to dismiss the consensus view of a very large group of 
> folks in an offhand manner, citing only anecdotal reports over short 
> periods of time?"

The exact words you used were:

"In the course of my life I have seen alot of things that 
were considered a "proven scientific fact" later disproved...
If some of us are skeptical as to the conclusions of "science" 
and to the "real" toxicity and ramifications of chemical 
treatments it is not without basis nor is without precedence."

> When did I dismiss any view of anyone? 

In the exact lines quoted above.

> I have merely presented my view (and the view of many others). 

A view that can only be read as dismissing science AS A WHOLE in 
a very offhand manner, as I pointed out. 

This is a highly entertaining posture, moreso given the highly
indignant reaction to my merely questioning the one specific 
study which you mentioned. (Or, more to the point, my questioning
your interpretation of a presentation about a study.)

> But I most assuredly understand and respect all your opinions. 
> I simply don't entirely agree with all of them.

I respect all views. 
I just couldn't make any sense of yours.
That's why I took the time to ask you questions, something 
that I am certain to hesitate to do in the future.

The specific points of apparent disagreement are what interest me. 
I was just trying to see where you were coming from, and narrow 
things down to simple points. This was merely an attempt to find 
out how you came to your stated views on these issues.

> I would appreciate in the future, if we choose to continue this 
> discussion if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth 
> and implying things I did not say nor did I intend to say or imply. 

OK, so asking any question that attempts to narrow the issues and
"get down to brass tacks" is not going to result in an answer, but 
instead, objections to the questions as "unfair"? That makes it
difficult to conduct an adult conversation. 

> If you would instead discuss what I SAID instead of what you THINK 
> I said, it would be much easier and less stressful for both of us.

Well, when the most basic question I asked was "are you SURE
that you heard him correctly?", there are multiple layers of 
"he said/I heard" to wade through.

So, I'll ask again. Are you SURE he said what you said he said?

I'm sorry if I caused you any stress. Would it have been less stressful
for me to simply paste specific lines from your message, and ask YOU 
to take the time to respond to "Explain your reasoning here?" after 
each quote? Do you think this would result in your jumping at
once to the specific point of interest? Sounds like I'd make a
lot more work for you this way.

But, if you wish, you may explain the pathology of both nosema and 
AFB, and illustrate how you think the specific practices you mentioned 
would somehow "lower the incidence" of either problem.

In specific regard to the "honey" issue, could you also explain 
why honey should be considered somehow "superior" to HFCS and/or
sugar syrup when all honey is well-known to contain natural 
indigestibles ('ash', if you will) which not only can, but 
inevitably will lead to diarrhea or worse in the long periods 
when bees are not able to take regular cleansing flights during winter?

While I agree that improperly prepared sugar syrup can have even
an even higher percentage of indigestible content due to over-heating 
resulting in sugar that is "caramelized", I wish you to compare "properly
prepared" to "properly prepared" versions of each.

Bottom line, I'm harmless. Relax, laugh a little, and understand
that my being "hard on the issue" is not being "hard on the person". 
Asking for an explanation of your reasoning is NOT an "attack".

In a subsquent posting, you said (exact quote, here):

"I have to say it's the story of my life that people on both 
sides of a fence think always think I'm on the other side."

Could it be that these sorts of "failures to communicate" arise
from the sort of defensive and angry response you made to a few 
simple questions from me?

Sounds to me like a song done by the Animals, later covered
by both Joe ****er and Cindy Lauper:

"I'm just a soul who's intentions are good -
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood."


----------



## Terri (Apr 14, 2003)

MICHAEL is defensive?

MMMmmmm....Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, if you take my meaning.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

jfischer,
In the below quoted question to MB, please explain or provide an authoritive reference source for the your ridiculous assertion that honey causes diarrhea in bees. Surely you would agree that, since bees work very hard to make honey for the long winter, it must be good for them? Was this a joke too?

"In specific regard to the "honey" issue, could you also explain why honey should be considered somehow "superior" to HFCS and/or
sugar syrup when all honey is well-known to contain natural indigestibles ('ash', if you will) which not only can, but inevitably will lead to diarrhea or worse in the long periods when bees are not able to take regular cleansing flights during winter?"

My guess is that much like humans, bees need some amount of roughage in their diet.

Danke


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

You guys type too much

Seems to me the only reason there is an arguement here is perhaps, only to argue b/w each other. Just state what your opinions are on the subject, I dont want to hear your opinions on eachother. It just fills the page up with garbage, and doesnt hold any wait in the arguement in my opinion...
I read all that and got nothing from it!!!

Ian

[This message has been edited by Ian (edited March 03, 2004).]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>My question was very very simple. I'll ask it again.

>If "AFB is everywhere", as you claim, then where did it come from?
How did it get there?

>If bees started in new equipment and foundation in areas known to lack bees 
(used in research for "isolation testing" of newly-imported stock) can get 
AFB, then I might agree with your claim that "AFB is everywhere". In fact,
I am led to understand that the consensus view is that AFB is most often 
spread by much more simple mechanisms:

And I will answer again quoting from my posts above:

"You have staphylococcus bacteria in every human abode. Even if its new and even if the people came in a very clean ambulance. How did it get there? Life. The environment is full of it. How do AFB spores get in a hive? They live forever. Bees investigate every place that bees in the preceding hundreds of years have been. There are spores there."

>> Where did I imply or say that AFB was caused by spontaneous generation? 

>It was a joke. It was a refutation of your flat statement that
"AFB is everywhere and is a stress disease." It was an attempt
to gently point out that if beekeepers become convinced that merely 
"preventing stress" (a highly subjective metric, one nearly impossible 
to measure) will prevent AFB, this will result in more cases of AFB 
that get out of control.

Personally I don't think comparing someones view to an irational view is helpful to the discussion.

>> I basically stated that the bees WILL be exposed to AFB because it is in 
>> the environment, 

>I also question this specific claim.

You certainly are entitled to question anyones claim of anything. But if AFB spores are NOT commonly everywhere then why treat with Terramycin? If the spores are NOT common then what is the point?

>>...an irrational belief in spontaneous generation.

>And when/where did I claim that belief in spontaneous generation 
was "irrational"? Isn't this the crime I am accused of committing?

Are you saying that you believe that spontaneous generation IS rational? If so, I think this conversation is a TOTAL waste of time.

>I simply asked if this was the explanation for AFB spores being "everywhere",
as I could think of no other way for such spores to be "everywhere", or
even "in the environment" in sufficient quantity and universal distribution
to be able to be encountered by a bee.

Bees will investigate anywhere that bees have been in the past. AFB spores live virtually forever so they only accumulate in the environment. Any bees anywhere WILL find and investigate places that bees have lived in the past.

>> I said:
>> "The Fumidil is for Nosema. Again, if you try to prevent stress and leave 
>> them honey for the winter they will be less likely to get an outbreak."

>> Where did I say anything more than what Tom Webster said in his presentation? 

>I don't know what Tom said to your group, or what you think Tom said.

Exactly! So why do you keep questioning it? I have a remarkable memory and can assure you that he said no more or less than that a study had revealed that bees on honey for winter feed had less incidence of Nosema and those on dark honey had even less. He was NOT trying to say that it was a "replacement" for Fumidil, nor am I trying to say he said that. However for those of us NOT using Fumidil it is helpful to know.

>I only know what I heard Tom say at a different meeting, and what is on the tape I 
made of his talk. (Yeah, I got it all on tape. That's why I'm so sure of what
he did and did not say at the TN meeting.)

And are you going to share what he said about honey for winter feed, at that meeting, with us?

>> I said "leave them honey for the winter they will be LESS LIKELY 
>> to get an outbreak." 

>Then do you or don't you think that honey (or, as you said elsewhere, "dark honey") 
has any impact on (and, thereby is responsible for a lower incidence of nosema)? 

Yes. According to at least one study, bees overwinterd on honey had less incidence of Nosema. There does not appear to be a likely hood that the Nosema caused the bees to eat honey as winter feed, so the causality seems obvious. However, it would be much more obvious if a mechanism could be isolated. As someone who has kept bees for 30 years, with a lot of success and has NEVER used Fumidil I think I can say unequivocally that you CAN raise bees without it.

>> You changed what I said, 

>If you feel that my questions were "changing" rather than attempts to clarify
and simplify your statements, then we apparently have very different understandings
of the pathology of diseases like AFB and nosema. I was trying to take your statements
and fit them into existing models of bee disease pathology, nothing more.

Then let's clarify. The "germ" theory of disease, which started with Pasteur and has continued until today is that microorganisms are the cause of most, if not all, diseases. And that the cure is to avoid or kill the microorganisms. That theory is still around but is gradually being replaced by the theory that the microorganisms are always there and the microorganisms are opportunists that take advantage of weakened immune systems, or stress. My experience and a lot of recent science in general would support the later theory. I would much prefer to remove the stress than to try to overpower the microorganisms.

>> You said I said:
>> "Yet you want to dismiss the consensus view of a very large group of 
>> folks in an offhand manner, citing only anecdotal reports over short 
>> periods of time?"

>The exact words you used were:

>"In the course of my life I have seen alot of things that 
>were considered a "proven scientific fact" later disproved...
>If some of us are skeptical as to the conclusions of "science" 
>and to the "real" toxicity and ramifications of chemical 
>treatments it is not without basis nor is without precedence."

I have stated the reason I do not trust the basic pharmecutical/chemical/pesticide kind of solutions. I don't see where I was "dismissive" or "offhand". Characterizing what people say and discussing what they say are two different things. How do you suggest I express my distrust of the system that gave us Thalidimide, Phen-Fen, DDT and many others without you characterizing me as being dismissive and offhand? You and others certainly have a right to trust that system if you like. I certainly have the right not to if I like.

>> When did I dismiss any view of anyone? 

>In the exact lines quoted above.

Then tell me how do I state my reasons for NOT trusting a "scientific" system that I have seen fail so many times in the past without being dismissive to your view? I certainly did not intend to be dismissive to anyones view.

>> I have merely presented my view (and the view of many others). 

>A view that can only be read as dismissing science AS A WHOLE in 
a very offhand manner, as I pointed out. 

I still don't know what is "offhand" about it. Stating the reasons for my beliefs seems straightforward to me. And I certainly would not say that my view of science is to dismiss it as a whole by any means. I have learned to take science with a grain of salt and learned to look further into the details of studies and side effects of chemicals and have come to some of my own conclusions based on those studies and my own experiences. If I come across as dismissive, it was not my intention and I hope you will forgive me.

>This is a highly entertaining posture, moreso given the highly
indignant reaction to my merely questioning the one specific 
study which you mentioned. (Or, more to the point, my questioning
your interpretation of a presentation about a study.)

You have a habit of characterizing my responses in ways I do not intend them. Im not sure what you think qualifies you to determine my indignance or my posture. My only indignance is what you seem to read into what I have said. Have you ever tried just having a rational discussion of the subject at hand without characterizing the emotions and intent of the person you are discussing it with? My guess is you would get more information with less misunderstanding.

>> But I most assuredly understand and respect all your opinions. 
>> I simply don't entirely agree with all of them.

>I respect all views. I just couldn't make any sense of yours. That's why I took the time to ask you questions, something 
that I am certain to hesitate to do in the future.

I still do not see your response as an attempt to clarify anything. I think I stated quite clearly what I meant in the first place. Mostly I find myself quoting myself from previous posts.

>The specific points of apparent disagreement are what interest me. 
I was just trying to see where you were coming from, and narrow 
things down to simple points. This was merely an attempt to find 
out how you came to your stated views on these issues.

I think you will find a lot of people of that same view on this board if you listen.

>> I would appreciate in the future, if we choose to continue this 
>> discussion if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth 
>> and implying things I did not say nor did I intend to say or imply. 

>OK, so asking any question that attempts to narrow the issues and
"get down to brass tacks" is not going to result in an answer, but 
instead, objections to the questions as "unfair"? That makes it
difficult to conduct an adult conversation. 

No. If you have a specific statement I have made, let's say "AFB spores are everywhere" then quote my statement and ask me for clarification. What I didn't want was to be accused of saying I believe in spontaneous generation when I said nothing of the sort. The others were similar complaints.

>> If you would instead discuss what I SAID instead of what you THINK 
>> I said, it would be much easier and less stressful for both of us.

>Well, when the most basic question I asked was "are you SURE
that you heard him correctly?", there are multiple layers of 
"he said/I heard" to wade through.

What he said was that bees overwintered on honey had less incidence of Nosema than bees overwinterd on sugar syrup and dark honey had less incidence than light honey. When asked about the cause he said that no one knows. I dont see any layers here. Its what I said the first time, the second time, the third time

>So, I'll ask again. Are you SURE he said what you said he said?

I am quite certain that is no more or less than what was said. I have said it several times now. Im not sure if you are questioning my memory or my veracity.

>I'm sorry if I caused you any stress. Would it have been less stressful
for me to simply paste specific lines from your message, and ask YOU 
to take the time to respond to "Explain your reasoning here?" after 
each quote?

Certainly.

>Do you think this would result in your jumping at
once to the specific point of interest? Sounds like I'd make a
lot more work for you this way.

I don't understand why you perceive that would make more work? I'm also not sure what "jumping at once to the specific point of interst?" means? My first impression was that you mean I would skip some points and address the ones I'm interested in, but that wouldn't make MORE work, so I must not be understanding what you are saying.

>But, if you wish, you may explain the pathology of both nosema and 
AFB, and illustrate how you think the specific practices you mentioned 
would somehow "lower the incidence" of either problem.

Maybe someday I'll have some personal experience with AFB. I hope not. But I have had bees for 30 years, have not used any antibiotics for 29 of those years and have never had any. Im sure some of it is luck. But probably not all of it. I think we both understand the pathology of AFB quite well and it is documented in every bee book Ive ever seen. I dont see the use of rehashing it

I think weve both read plenty over the years on the protozoa Nosema apis. I can't say that my bees have or have not ever had Nosema. Especially since I am lacking a microscope. I have had bees with dysentery after long cold spells in the winter. I have had very productive hives with crops as large as 200 pounds a hive in good years and I've never used Fumidil. Until a few years ago when the mites showed up I had never lost a hive.

The original question was concerning raising bees without chemicals. My point is, if you don't want to use hard chemicals to raise bees you don't have to. As far as the practices I mentioned, keeping strong hives is recommended by virtually every bee book I have, as the best preventative to most everything, including AFB. Certainly they all also stress using all of the antibiotics, but I certainly did not invent the concept that weak stressed hives are susceptible to diseases and that keeping strong hives, by combining weak ones or requeening weak ones, is the best way to avoid most diseases.

The honey for winter feed will help reduce Nosema. It certainly does not have the dramatic affect of an antibiotic such as Fumidil, but some of us don't want that in our hives.

>In specific regard to the "honey" issue, could you also explain 
why honey should be considered somehow "superior" to HFCS and/or
sugar syrup when all honey is well-known to contain natural 
indigestibles ('ash', if you will) which not only can, but 
inevitably will lead to diarrhea or worse in the long periods 
when bees are not able to take regular cleansing flights during winter?

I'm not saying it "should be considered" superior or not. There are a lot of factors that could be interpreted in different ways. The reduced incidence of Nosema is the only scientific evidence I know of but again, there is not a lot a "natural" beekeeper can do to reduce Nosema except this so it is significant to us. It has been speculated that some of that difference may be due to those very solids that may contain micro nutrients the bees need to handle the stress. It may also be the difference in pH between the honey and the sugar syrup. All of this is speculation, of course. We don't know the mechanism. I do know that bees have overwintered for millennia on honey. Whether you believe that God made them in balance with their natural habitat and natural food or evolution has, the end result is, honey is what they are made to eat. IMO I see no reason to believe anything else is an improvement without a very significant, measurable difference.

>Bottom line, I'm harmless. Relax, laugh a little, and understand
that my being "hard on the issue" is not being "hard on the person". 
Asking for an explanation of your reasoning is NOT an "attack".

You have in the course of just this current post characterized me as indignant, entertaining, posturing, defensive, dismissive, and later in this post as angry. These are all your words. I could add a lot more characterizations that you didnt say in one word but in whole phrases, but I wont. I dont see any of that having anything to do with being hard on the issue. I have no problem with being ask for an explanation of my reasoning. I am complaining about you characterizing both me and the things I have said in a totally different way than I intended and saying that I'm saying things that I am not. Of course at this point I dont get the feeling you have any real interest in my POV.

>In a subsquent posting, you said (exact quote, here):

>"I have to say it's the story of my life that people on both 
sides of a fence think always think I'm on the other side."

>Could it be that these sorts of "failures to communicate" arise from the sort of defensive and angry response you made to a few simple questions from me?

And now you are characterizing me as angry. And you don't understand why things like this rub people the wrong way? I am not angry. I AM defensive of being misquoted. Most of the reason I get classified on opposite sides is that I often listen to both sides of an argument and find some truth on both sides. In the end both sides think I'm on the other side and I'm just trying to see the truth in the other side. There are seldom two polarized views of things unless there is some truth on both sides.

>"I'm just a soul who's intentions are good -
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood."

Questioning others reasons by direct quotes or simple direct questions in order to understand them and matter-of-factly stating your opinion on the matter when you disagree, without characterization or judgment, will probably clear up most of the misunderstanding.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Gentlemen, Gentlemen.
The psychologist in me is fascinated by the above. Two great minds in beekeeping and you get hooked into such an elegant tug-of-war. And I thought that wars for dominance were for the animal kingdom.
Jim,
You took a small sojourn from Bee-l to visit with us. I hope you hang around because you know stuff and I could learn from you. A lot of us here are risking all to raise bees without drugs of any kind. One day you commercial guys will be coming to us when we are ahead of the curve on resistant AFB. This is where you could possibly take away something.

Mike,
Jim is hard to get the last word with but now that you've jousted I hope we stop trying to do that. He's been around awhile and is well respected. You are as solid as a rock on this board and that's not going to change. Let's keep Jim too. 
NOw, can we start over? Let me hear both your inputs on something neutral. Is there a relationship between the defensiveness of a colony and the honey crop it produces?

Dickm


----------



## Curry (Sep 22, 2003)

Dickm

Great question! I think that defensiveness certainly improves honey crop- and the AHB has proven that.

But I also think that defensiveness is an important part of IPM as well. You'll hear lots of talk about cell size, SBB's, Russian bees, etc., but I think that defensiveness is completely overlooked as part of IPM. I've switched over to the Russian bee, and I think the reason it can handle varroa better than other races is that it is slightly more defensive. For over a century we have been breeding gentleness into our bees- while mother nature was breeding survival into russian bees. When I make queens, I use the more agressive hives that I have (out of the hives I've had untreated for 4 years now). These agressive hives have proven to survive mites untreated and tend to produce more honey IMO. I use a full (nylon) bee suit, which I know many beekeepers won't- but I think it's worth having one more IPM strategy to employ.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

On the issue of a really HOT hive. I don't think it is beneficial to the bees or the beekeeper. A lot of bees get killed over-defending a hive. Crops are often good because of robbing your other hives.

On the other hand, I think SOME defensiveness MAY be part of the reason some bees do better agains Varroa and especially against SHB. I agree the Russians seem defensive, but in a different way than most hot bees. Instead of all trying to sting me at once, they just do more head butting and dive bombing, but not a lot of stinging.

I think it would make a wonderful study to find out if there is a relationship.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Note to Jim and anyone else interested in my opinions (or anyone else's opinions) on anything. There is a search feature here in the forums and another from the menu on the main page (slightly different searches from the main page search). The one from the forum has a space for user name. Mine is "Michael Bush". If you also fill in the Search words with something like "AFB" you will find all of the entries where "AFB was somewhere in those posts and I responded. Using AFB as an example there are 42 entries for that and in there you will probably find everything you ever wanted to know about my opinion on that. You will need to put in search words because it will only list 200 results and I have more than 5400 posts.

I have, over the last few years, changed my opinions on many things, so if an earlier post says one thing and later post says another please don't accuse me of inconsistency, it's because the good people of this forum have convinced me to reasess my original thoughts on the subject.

With over 5400 posts of mine out there, you should be able to clarify anything you want to know about what I think on any aspect of beekeeping.

Using this search feature without anyone's name is a very good way to find information on whatever subject you are interested in and give you the opportunity to hear a variety of opinions from many experienced people.

Again, using AFB as an example, a search on just AFB will return 112 results.


----------



## ranwithrsd (Feb 22, 2003)

On the question of whether a more defensive hive has better honey production; has the AHB--of those who have had dealings/research or use/have to use some hives of that stock (from wherever in the world, I know that there are beekeepers from all over that read this forum)-- been able to keep varroa in check, i.e., is this a reason for the increase in honey production as well? 
If defensiveness is a factor in increased honey production, does that mean that AHB's traits may be a blessing in disguise (as much as many seem to loath it) for those in the areas of the U.S. that it is infiltrating? (A side question would be as the AHB continues to move northward, will it be able to adapt enough to survive winters eventually in the northern U.S./Canada, providing another varroa resistant stock (feral, at that!) to draw from, if this is the case?)
I am just wondering if someone might turn the 'bad' effect of hyper-aggressiveness of AHB, as it is commonly talked of having, into an advantage, if this is the case--and has anyone from South America said that lower incidences of varroa are occuring to AHB stock (feral or otherwise) compared to 'domesticated' (european) stock commonly used by most in the western hemisphere for honey production. I hope what I am asking makes sense...
Robert


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2004)

On "Hot" hives... ignoring AHB for a moment,
I most often find that a "hot" hive is one 
that has been bothered by skunks or other 
small mammals over a period of days.

This happens often enough in my yards that 
part of one of the talks I am giving in PA 
at the end of the month will address "IDing 
tracks of animals". See, Boy Scout training 
DOES have a practical application! (But I
must admit that my current definition of 
"camping out" is staying in a town without
and Embassy Suites.)

If "hotter" non-AHB hives are considered 
generally "more productive", could it be 
that they are more defensive merely because 
they have "more to protect"? Which causes
which? I dunno, I simply requeen consistently
nasty hives. I have yet to buy a "bee suit",
and its been years and years.

On the prior AFB/Nosema discussion, I must 
apologize. I had no idea I was discussing 
AFB with someone who had never even seen it. 

You have to see it yourself (or know someone 
who has fought it) to hate it enough. Either 
you hate it as something that can wipe you out, 
or it is merely an abstract issue. 
There's no in-between.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

I wrote a short essay on the day I had to go out and kill some hives with AFB. Is there a way to post it on this site? MB?

Thanks


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I don't know how to post anything other than put it in new post if it's not too long. The other choice is to email it to Barry and see if he will post it somewhere. I'd just cut and paste it into a post here.


----------

