# Suckercide Questions . . .



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Before I throw away my Suckercide, please let me ask . . .

Does your concentrate have any odor?
Any color?
Whats the batch code on your container?

thanx . . .


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

On the back of my bottle is the number "21014". I ASSUME thats a batch number.

Does someone have a bottle w/ the same number?


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

Mine's 21014, too. It does have a chemical type smell and has the color of dark honey.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Dave W. I sent you a PM.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

thanx . . . that helps.

Mine "stinks", in more ways than one








and looks like Coke or Root Beer.

Does yours work?


----------



## Happy Bee (Oct 21, 2005)

I bought a few bottles and all of them have the same number than yours "21014", I think it's more the bottle reference than the product batch number.
I agree with Dave "Sucrocide stinks", when I started using it, my wife asked me if I got sick because she said I smeled like vomit.
The color looks like coke when it is concentrated and becomes lighter when it's mixed with water.
If you prepare you Sucrocide too long in advance the smell and the color, and probably its efficiency, disappears.
This product works for me, even if I don't like the smell and the look of my bees after the treatment.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Dave

What size spray nozzle are you using?
Are you removing frames and spraying or are you spraying between.
What are your mite drops before/after?
What are the problems you are seeing?

We haven't used it yet but plan too as part of our IPM. Curious about all the pros and cons.
Thanks


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Happy Bee . . .

>If you prepare you Sucrocide too long in advance the smell and the color, and probably its efficiency, disappears.

Here is a note I made in my "notes".
"Use within a day of mixing; Sucricide starts to degrade after a day or so in solution" - ABJ, 3/05, p188.


Joel . . .

I have been using a "pump-up" (pressurized), hand-held, 1-1/2 qt???, sprayer. Not exactly what label calls for, but I make sure I apply the correct AMOUNT. How thats done (or with) shouldnt matter. Guess you could just "pour it on". I have read about "researchers" using a squeeze-type (glass cleaner) sprayer and compressor driven automotive paint spray guns. Guess it doesnt matter.

See above for other questions.

>haven't used it yet . . .
You you like to buy an opened pint for, say $100?


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

I treated 3 hives with it as an experiment. After 3 treatments the mites were knocked down in 2 of them the third one was dropping 150 a day. I really soaked those puppies in a 4th treatment. Either I will kill them or the mites will. They looked ok later.

Dickm


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

dickm . . .

>dropping 150 a day . . .

Thats not many mites, IF you have THOUSANDS in the hive









Please review my drop numbers listed elsewhere, your 150 sounds much like the very poor results I have listed.


----------



## Robert Brenchley (Apr 23, 2000)

What you need to do is follow up with oxalic or some other treatment which is known to be effective. If the sucrocide is working, there shouldn'tbe many left to kill.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

definitely smell foul....

but after about 2 hour the girls have picked themselves up and are about their business once again..

Joel what does IPM stand for?


----------



## Brent Bean (Jun 30, 2005)

IPM stands for Intragrated Pest Management, since there is no silver bullets for mite control a variety of controls need to be employed, like screen bottom boards amongst other control methods.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

thanks brent for the jargon clarification...

To DaveW:
is it my understanding that you are not very satisfied with sucrocide? do you have any reasons beyond the awful smell?


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

tecumseh . . .

I have counted mites EVERY week since Jan 05. In spring (before flow) I used Suckercide. After harvest, I used it several more times. My mite drops did NOT increase much after application. (posted results elsewhere, do a search) I was very disappointed.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Robert Brenchley . . .

I agree that applying ONE MORE chemical would help define the lack of effectiveness of previous treatments.

I do not agree that VAPORIZED OA is any better than Suckercide. My numbers from last year shows them to be about the same. 

QUESTIONS . . .

1) If a (any) treatment IS effective, how much (numbers please) will the mite drop increase? 

2) If a treatment is applied now (this time of year) AND VERY FEW MITES FALL, how do I that a "natural decling in mite population" has not already occured?


----------



## Brent Bean (Jun 30, 2005)

I used formic acid pad in the form of Mite-Away II, mite drop will be largest after first application then decrease. Brood production slows around mid September and is completely stopped by early October here, which makes mite treatment most effective because with no brood no mite reproduction. I was happy with results of mite eradication compared with mite strips I have been using, and I didnt notice any disruption of the bees. I fact after I removed the treatment they seemed better natured. Possibly less mite stress makes them less irritable?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

We ran formic for a week during the break between pulling spring honey and putting the supers back on. Satisfied with control but definatley affected brood in some hives(and some not) Most miticides have the highest percentage of total kill in the 1st week and it drops dramatically after that. Our buckfast handled it considerably better than our Italains although I have no idea why.

Will be using succrocide while the bees are south, We'll see how it goes.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

DaveW sezs:
My mite drops did NOT increase much after application.

tecumseh ask;
what method are you using to count mites and what kind of mite problems are you encountering?

it seems like to me that your question #1 is a bit backward... ie if a treatment is effective shouldn't you mite drop decrease?

and it appear to me that in regards to #2 that you should expect a decrease in mite number (this fall stuff is confusing me I must admit) as the brood area contracts.

it is my understanding that in most mite counting regimes that the raw number mite count are multiplied by a factor (I use 2 for fall and 3 for spring) to adjust the raw number for seasonal variation in the relationship between bees and brood.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

tecumseh . . . 

>what method . . .
Sticky board

>what kind of mite problems are you encountering . . .
No DWF, no removal of "white brood". My NATURAL fall is higher than I "think" it should be.

> if a treatment is effective shouldn't you mite drop decrease?
Yes, at some point AFTER treatment. But, first, I would like to see mite fall INCREASE to indicate that the treatmet is KILLING some mites.

Heres an example . . .
IF natural fall is 100 for a couple of 24-hr tests BEFORE treatment, I want to see that number jump up 6, 7, 10 times higher WHILE the treatment is KILLING mites. After treatment is complete (days or weeks later), the NATURAL fall then should be LESS than the original 100 (maybe even zero, in a perfect world







) and remain lower than original number for a while (at least a week or two or more).

>you should expect a decrease in mite number (this fall stuff is confusing me I must admit) as the brood area contracts.
During winter (cold weather) mite drop is ALWAYS lower than in warm weather. As the weather gets colder, my NATURAL mite fall will decrease, naturally (not because of any treatment).

>raw number mite count are multiplied . . .
IF for some reason, you are trying to determine TOTAL MITE POPULATION in hive, a 24-hr count MAY be multiplied by some factor. I have not (because I can not prove) seen a "factor system" that works.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

dave w adds:
IF for some reason, you are trying to determine TOTAL MITE POPULATION in hive, a 24-hr count MAY be multiplied by some factor. I have not (because I can not prove) seen a "factor system" that works.

tecumseh replies:
woa.. perhaps I should dive off the high board and go into a short course on statistical analysis but that end of the pool is a bit deep and often time where you might pop us is not so obvious....

however let me just add this tidbit... if you desire to have some reliable (and validity... for in any true science you will be required to accomplish both) in your 'statistic' (a fancy name for a mathmatical process of estimation) you will have to compose a logical set of variables that effect the relationship between sample and population. now it seems to me that the relationship between adult population and brood population is changing day by day and by season, so without some seasonal adjusting factor you are in essence only considering the mite numbers on the adult population. So as far as your 'statistic' is concerned, I would guess that the number is reliable when the brood area is very limited. The fact that the relationship of growth in brood area and true total mite numbers (population) is growing exponentially (seasonally) WILL confound the raw results of you statistical process. 

and then dave states:
Yes, at some point AFTER treatment. But, first, I would like to see mite fall INCREASE to indicate that the treatmet is KILLING some mites.

tecumseh suggest:
it seems to me you are thinking that the shucking of the mites is always taking place within the confines of the bee hive. I would be somewhat sceptical of this assumption.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>I have not (because I can not prove) seen a "factor system" that works.

Do you know of a system that works?


>however let me just add this tidbit... if you desire to have some reliable (and validity... for in any true science you will be required to accomplish both) in your 'statistic' (a fancy name for a mathmatical process of estimation) you will have to compose a logical set of variables that effect the relationship between sample and population. now it seems to me that the relationship between adult population and brood population is changing day by day and by season, so without some seasonal adjusting factor you are in essence only considering the mite numbers on the adult population. So as far as your 'statistic' is concerned, I would guess that the number is reliable when the brood area is very limited. The fact that the relationship of growth in brood area and true total mite numbers (population) is growing exponentially (seasonally) WILL confound the raw results of you statistical process. 

What did you say?


>it seems to me you are thinking that the shucking of the mites is always taking place within the confines of the bee hive. I would be somewhat sceptical of this assumption.

Please explain.


----------



## Brent Bean (Jun 30, 2005)

Tecunseh:

Great synopsis on calculating mite mortality, kind of a long version but well said. 

David W.
The only important thing to consider is are you hives productive and flourishing? If they are your mite treatment is working. I have heard that beekeeping is agriculture for intellectuals, tho my wife might scoff at that notion, and we love to ponder about things. Like how many mites are in my hive exactly, and how many of the little vermin have we knocked off.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

There may or may not be mites falling off of bees that are away from the hive, but the number of mites falling after the treatment should increase from what the mites falling were before the treatment and the number should decrease after the treatment is no longer having an effect.

You need three numbers:

(1) Before treatment.

(2) During Treatment.

(3) After Treatment.

I think these numbers are all important to (1) assessing the extent of the problem, (2) the efficacy of the treatment, and (3) the state of the hive after the treatment.

(2), the fall during the treament, should be higher than (1), the fall before the treatment. (3), the fall after the treatment is finished, should be lower than (1). If there is some other trend, then something isn't working right.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

brent bean adds:
The only important thing to consider is are you hives productive and flourishing?

tecumseh politely adds:
actually as the problem comes to a certain critical stage the hive may seem to actually be flourishing, after which the population will crash. I look for bad laying pattern and/or buckshot brood, which appears to me to be a warning sign that the hives strength is fixin' to take a dive.

michael bush sezs:
You need three numbers:

tecumseh adds content:
yes... plus some time frames as to how long the treatment requires to be effective. for example I would expect OA to be fairly quick in it's effectiveness which contrast with sucrecid which I would assume to be much slower. this information should direct you to the time lag between michael bush's #2 and #3.

dave w ask:
What did you say?

tecumseh elaborates:
your statistic as an estimator of the true population of mites is only taking into account the adult population. the difference between your statistic and a perfect estimator of mite population is the error term. when brood number are low and mite numbers are declining the error term is small and the opposite is true when brood and mite numbers are expanding (your error term is very large). so your method of estimating mites (statistic) could likely be quite accurate during one season, and quite inaccurate during another.

dave w ask:
please explain

tecumseh adds:
it is my understand that the product works by making the mites appendages fall off. I have never seen a number for how long this takes, but it would seem logical that this could happen interior or exterior to the hive. you seem to be assuming that all the shucking of mites is 'always' taking place interior to the hive.


----------



## Brent Bean (Jun 30, 2005)

Tecumseh:

I agree there are many signs that may indicate if a hive is flourishing, brood pattern is one but could also mean that your queen is past her prime. Should you do a mite count? If you are trying to compare one treatment to another for effectiveness, sure get out the magnifying glass and pull up a stump. If not a good observation of mite fall concentration is good enough. The proof of the mite control will be how well they do threw the winter.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I would expect OA to be fairly quick in it's effectiveness which contrast with sucrecid which I would assume to be much slower. this information should direct you to the time lag between michael bush's #2 and #3.

The OA STARTS being effective farily quickly, but the effects seem to last a little over a week. Mites continue to die at a noticably increased rate for at least that long. I have never used the Sucrocide so I have no idea how it works.

So with OA the time lag between #2 and #3 is actually more than a week.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

tecumseh . . .

Please review my mite drop numbers at:

http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000568;p=1#000015

and tell me (us) how you "read" them.

thanx


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

I am having a bit of computer hardware problem at this end of the line, so if my coming and going seems to be a bit erratic just chill out and tecumseh will pass down this path again after a short while.

First just let me get some understading as to your shorthand. For example you wrote...

Feb 4 - 16.6 (232/14) 9 white

First off I believe someone asked if these numbers were collected on one hive, are we correct on this assumption? I take that you have a raw count of 232 mites (which fell onto the sticky board?) and have divided this number by 14, why 14?. In addition what exactly is the significants of 9 white? I also note in this highlighted tread that someone mentions DWV, could you fill me in on what that jargon means?

And now for a short drive-by critique. First off (and given the one hive assumption above is correct) you can do NO statistical analysis on this form of data because you are constrained by lack of numbers (n-1=0). A statistician would state fairly plainly that his level of confindence in any statistic performed on this data is 0 (n-1). Numero twoooo, you execution of the timing for sucrocide application is lacking. Note the one exception for this is an application performed beginning Mar 21. If you focus on your numbers that fall out after this date it would appear that you did acquire some benefit from this application.

Could you also indicate for me the earliest date when you 'could' begin sucrocide application and when would winter disallow it's use. Lastly, when do the bee's begin to brood up in your vicinity?

look forward to your input...


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

DWV= deformed wing virus.Or at least the results of DWV since we dont see the virus obviously,but just to be technically correct.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>someone asked if these numbers were collected on one hive . . .
db_land first asked this question October 21, 2005 03:26 PM. My answer to him was, "I have only one hive". Your "assumption" is correct.

For the example you chose . . .
>Feb 4 - 16.6 (232/14) 9 white 

Total quantity of mites found = 232 (raw count)
>(which fell onto the sticky board?) = Yes

232 mites was collected over 14 days (from Jan 21 to Feb 4). Please divide 232 by 14 to get a 24-hr drop of 16.6. 

>what exactly is the significants of 9 white . . .
I dont know "exactly"







. If immature mites are white, by noting time-of-year they occur, I hope to MAYBE determine when (bee) brooding starts and stops? Right? Do you see other posibilities?

My use of "DWV" is as stated above by loggermike.

>earliest date when you 'could' begin sucrocide application and when would winter disallow it's use . . .

Label instructions are "at first sighting" and best not applied to clusterd bees.

tecumseh, I did not mean to "put you on the spot". I was hoping we could learn from each other. 

Please allow me to offer how I "read" some of my numbers.

As an example . . .
Mar 4  25.0 (200/8) 5w
Mar 4  First Sucrocide, Lift & Spray
Mar 7  64.6 (194/3) 5w
Mar 10  26.7 (80/3) 3w

On Mar 7 my drop was greater than pre-treatment count of 25. Thats good! But not VERY GOOD. I expect to see 5x, 6x, 10x. This increase may or may not be due to the application of Sucrocide. I wish it had continued for several days, but on Mar 10, 26.7 indicates to me 1) the Sucrocide appplication has stopped working, or 2) not many mites are left to kill. But please note the following numbers;
Mar 14  29.5 (118/4) 6w
Mar 19  43.6 (218/5) 2w
Mar 21  48.0 (96/2) 2w

I "read" the results on Mar 14, 19, 21 as the natural "climb" in numbers as a result of mite reproduction.

Hope this helps!









[ November 10, 2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Dave W ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>>you seem to be assuming that all the shucking of mites is 'always' taking place interior to the hive.

Mites do appear to have a preference for nurse bees during their relatively short (4-10 days) phoretic period. That's not to say some won't end up on foragers and some of those won't end up falling off outside the hive but it appears that most mite mortality actually occurs within the cell and right after bee emergence.

George-


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

tecumseh sezs:
well I have finally patched my old worn tire (computer) and I am (as Willie would say) back on the road again...

dave w sezs:
tecumseh, I did not mean to "put you on the spot". I was hoping we could learn from each other. 

tecumseh replies:
no problem with 'that' Dave W and your last sentence pretty much wraps up my not so natural (educational institution) feeling concerning confronting any real problem. As a matter of statement of belief I have always followed the socratic method of inquiry. which in a nut shell suggest that if you keep asking the right question 'an' answer will pop up when the question is formulated in the proper way. so my direct advice to Dave W and everyone else is, be a bit skeptical and keep asking those questions. 

Dave Ferguson adds:
Mites do appear to have a preference for nurse bees during their relatively short (4-10 days) phoretic period. That's not to say some won't end up on foragers and some of those won't end up falling off outside the hive but it appears that most mite mortality actually occurs within the cell and right after bee emergence.

tecumseh replies:
I would assume you mean natural mite mortality, and 'if' true would seem to represent the largest proportion of what the 'sticky board' folks call natural fall. However I do believe there is a limitation in your thinking here...

At one time in my little life I worked for a commercial fellow who provided those package bees that people at one time acquired at Sears. Now if you have ever shook bees for bulk purposes you know that when a moderate flow is on it doesn't take very long for the girls to get saturated in the thin honey that falls from the frames. The look of the girls in this condition looks exactly like the girls after the application of sucrocide. Now the natural behavior of the girls after being drenched in syrup is to immediately begin grooming each other and then they seem inclined to take a short flight (I have always assumed to accertain if the equipment is still operational). For that matter, even nurse bees will take a short (cleansing) flight from time to time. So I would still suggest that only a percentage of the mites fall would occur internal to the hive.

dave W sezs:
I "read" the results on Mar 14, 19, 21 as the natural "climb" in numbers as a result of mite reproduction.

tecumseh replies:
yes and it also possible represent the exponential increase in brood production. which was really the reason for my prior question about when brood rearing begins and ends in your location.

I think the numbers posted in the latter part of your last response is in actually very informative. With the 'climb' in your numbers after the date mar 14 you can appreciate why the sucrocide instruction state the the next application should occur 7 to 10 days after the first application.

I am still not certain as to what you (Dave W) assumed sucrocide would accomplish. Let me tell you what tecumseh thinks it does and then we can go from there. At one time (1950's) people thought that they could irradicate pest of this form or that. It pretty soon became evident that this was not a workable mind set so 'control theory' became the preferred way of thinking. The idea here is to monitor the population of 'the pest' and when the pest growth rate begins increasing at an exponential rate you intervene and knock the population back down to near zero, at which time pest begin to recover and grow again.

gotta go do breakfast...

hope this helps....


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

tecumseh . . .

Glad your "tire" is patched, wish you could fix mine









>be a bit skeptical and keep asking those questions . . .
Questions are the only thing I have a lot of.









>what you (Dave W) assumed sucrocide would accomplish . . .
I had hoped to see my "drop" numbers first INCREASE a lot (maybe 5,6,7 times greater than pre-treatment) then (after treatment) I expect the drop to be LESS than (maybe 50% 60% 99%) pre-treatment.

>when the pest growth rate begins increasing at an exponential rate you intervene and knock the population back down to near zero, at which time pest begin to recover and grow again . . .
I think thats what I just said.









>package bees that people at one time acquired at Sears . . .
Oh my! You must be very, very OLD.







I am OLD and can "almost" remember a Sears catalog w/ bee stuff.

[ November 21, 2005, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Dave W ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>So I would still suggest that only a percentage of the mites fall would occur internal to the hive.

Tecumseh, have you got an opinion on what percentage of natural mite mortality involves mites falling off outside the hive, and if not, do you think this is a significant part of natural mite mortality?

George-


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

george ferguson ask:
Tecumseh, have you got an opinion on what percentage of natural mite mortality involves mites falling off outside the hive, and if not, do you think this is a significant part of natural mite mortality?

tecumseh replies:
Excellent question george. like dave w I just have a lot of question and definite limits on time and money. I may be old as dirt, as dave w suggest, to this bee stuff but I am still working at getting a mental grip on this mite problem. I suppose how you defined significant would be my first question to you george? I would think that if you were using sticky boards to estimate the total number of mites within a given hive, then any external shucking of mites would generate an error term in your estimate since flying time is very dependent on day to day weather variation and season. simply stated I would believe if mites shuck off interior to the hive then it likely happen exterior to the hive also. 

dave w adds:
>when the pest growth rate begins increasing at an exponential rate you intervene and knock the population back down to near zero, at which time pest begin to recover and grow again . . .
I think thats what I just said

tecumseh adds a bit of detail:
you make the treatment (to the adult population of bees), the hive's total mite numbers falls and then begins to recover (partially due to existing mites on emerging brood), when the mites recover to some level you treat again, the hive's total mite numbers falls again and then begins to recover as more brood emerges, you then treat for the third time. so if you really desire to compare compare apples to apples you look at your sticky board numbers prior to treatment and the numbers that are generated after the third treatment (14 to 20 day after the first treatment). 

given the developmental time inherent in bee bioliogy (18 days for a workers transformation from new larvae to emergence) it would seem to me that a 10 day cycle for treating with sucrocide would likely give you different result (I would suspect superior) than a 7 day cycle of application, but I have no personal numbers to confirm or reject this opinion.

I would still like to get some kind of estimate on the time lag between application and direct effect on the mite? If it works as I have been informed (it is also my understanding that the same basic product has been used for quite some time on leaf crops) then I would think that the effect is not immediate, but you would definitely wish to add this time lag to your total time interval of 14 to 20 days.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

tecumseh . . .

>you make the treatment (to the adult population of bees), the hive's total mite numbers falls . . .
I dont see this happening w/ SUCKERSIDE.
Please, PLEASE view my mite drop numbers and tell if you agree.

This application/kill/regrowth cycle takes about 3 years of applying a 99% effective treatment to reduce the mite population NEAR zero. So Im told


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

We had unsatisfactory results with Formic done over a 7 day period (during the lag between pulling the spring crop and resupering) similar to the succrocide results. We expected that and were looking for a quick knock down to delay the mite peak. It would seem that if you have to treat during periods with brood in the hive one of the strip products would be the only way to go as you'd have a constant exposure over the 21 day cycle of brood. Since mites are hatching and entering into cells daily we would never gain enough ground with treatments applied at 5, 10, or 21 day intervals. The amount of capped brood and likely the amount of mites in the sealed cycle and hatching are going to increase quicker than the temporary treatment is going to control. I think Daves' numbers indicate that. Since Formic is also harmful to brood it would seem this and succrocide would be most effective during the season when no capped, or small numbers of capped brood are present. In that case treatment applied at intervals of even of a week have the potential to be effective. I think the question Dave is framing goes further to say is there evidence that the succrocide is killing enough mites to be effective. Scientific studies done with a specific application methodology indicate there are. We intend to use succrocide in the down brood periods and find out. I hope our results are better than Daves'. Where's Fischer, he must have some educated thought on this data?

[ November 22, 2005, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I suppose how you defined significant would be my first question to you george?

Significant would be a large enough percentage to cause me to throw my margin of error out the window and go looking for a new one. Your next question would likely be "So what's your margin of error?" and my answer would then be "Oh, around plus or minus 5 percent". So I'd consider 5% of the total mite mortality occuring outside the hive as "significant".


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Why is ANY mortality OUTSIDE hive important?
And, wouldnt any "outside loss" probably be made up by invasion?


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Joel . . .

>constant exposure over the 21 day cycle of brood . . .
My Apistan treatment in July 04, shows the strips STOPPED KILLING mites after 12,13,14 days (even though they remained for 43 days).

Maybe this is where "resistance from using strips" comes from. Are the instructions WRONG????

>I think the question Dave is framing goes further to say is there evidence that the succrocide is killing enough mites to be effective . . .
No, thats not what Im saying. I do NOT see SUCKERCIDE providing ANY (measurable) effect.
Please, correct me if Im wrong.

[ November 23, 2005, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Dave W ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I do NOT see SUCKERCIDE providing ANY (measurable) effect.

I'd be inclined to agree. The apistan was certainly effective, for a while, but I think you're right- it looks like it killed all the mites it was going to kill after a couple of weeks.

I suspect *when* you treat is almost more important than what you treat with i.e., knocking back the mites in early spring isn't all that helpful if you leave a few thousand in there to rebuild their numbers with. However, you used Suckercide from March through September. I have yet to hear any rave reviews of that treatement.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

George . . .
You really ARE looking at my numbers . . .
thanx









According to VarroaPop review in ABJ (which you dont have







), early spring treatment WAS important, just as important as late summmer/early fall. But, for different reasons.

Effective early spring treatment DOES knock back some mites and may leave some to reproduce. "I think" the key is in the word and description of "effective". Effective (same word, same meaning, again







) late summer/early fall treatment is needed to clean-out the mites missed in spring (and reproduced all summer) and to help provide "clean" bees for winter.

Now, w/ two or more treatment required every year, how does that fit into an "anti-chemical" program?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Sorry Dave, typo on my part. I knew what you were saying.

I spoke with Tom Barrington this spring.(developed the product). One of the questions I raised was related to the effect on Beetles. (wouldn't the tropical oils also break down the beetle cuticles.) he wouldn't even hint towards that until testing was done. I found him to be honest and believe the testing and results were done and reported in good faith. ( I know your not saying other wise, I'm just clarifying my position). Possibly there is another effect here;

1) The tropical oils degrade during shelf life reducing the effectiveness. (rancid smell)

2) Does the mass manufacturing process somehow degrade the oils.

3) Is the application/delivery method faulty(less than used in testing)

4) Is there some type of biological effect due to different bees (ie. more hygenic) that is impacting the results.

When treatments (like apistan and cumophos) were 95% effective control could be reached with 2 treatments. Unless a bee yard is isolated I don't see either how we can run any type of chemical free IPM as I think a mid season knock down treatment is necessary. I don't think Cumophos should be any part of regimine which leave Apistan (resistance), Formic (harmful to queens and brood), OA (time consuming on large scale), and essential oils(yeah right). I don't think any company is making enough on these products to continue testing and some is not well done. Not enough profit. If mites are hatching out with brood, the Apistan ineffectiveness after 14 days is baffling. 

I will make time to do more detailed and regimented treatments next year and post the results. I unfortunately do not have your analytical skills though and almost no time due to a growing market. 

I hope others get with this as I think you are on to something including the directions may not be the best guide. Look what happened with the reccommended dosage for TM. The reccommended dosage turned out to be sub-lethal and contributed to resistance.
Keep hammering this nut, it will crack!


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>If mites are hatching out with brood, the Apistan ineffectiveness after 14 days is baffling.

If you believe the treatment is 98% effective, yes, it's baffling. It's not baffling if the treatment is, for some reason, only say, 50% effective. If the apistan is only killing 1/2 of any given set of mites, you reach a point of diminishing returns where leaving the strips in longer just doesn't generate the expected casualties. This could be partly due to resistance to the treatment and other factors like failing to deliver a fatal dose to all the mites in the hive due to strip placement, length of exposure, etc.

Theoretically, if you keep halving the mite population long enough, you'll end up with 1 mite left in your hive but with the little buggers constantly reproducing, that could be a long time- perhaps longer than you're going to leave the strips in the hive. I think that's what was happening in Davew's hive. It's the only way I can begin to explain what his counts show. I think over 3 weeks he managed to reduce the total mite population to about 20-25% of the pre-treatment number. Good, but not good enough.

George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I unfortunately do not have your analytical skills though and almost no time due to a growing market.

The situation is familiar, and not likely to get any better anytime soon. What we need is a faster and easier way to accurately count mites...

George-


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>believe the testing and results were done and reported in good faith . . .
"Good FAITH" part may be correct







If "testing" was done in a hive like mine, the way the label says to do it and IF results were the same as mine, Why sell it?

Suckercide MAY work great in a "test tube".









>3) Is the application/delivery method faulty(less than used in testing) . . .
I'll bet THIS is the PROBLEM!

>When treatments (like apistan and cumophos) were 95% effective . . . 
WERE effective? They STILL are . . . maybe 99% or greater.

>mid season knock down treatment is necessary . . .
OR some way of "SLOWING down reproduction" (drone brood removal and/or queen-caging OR small-cell?).

>Apistan ineffectiveness after 14 days is baffling . . .
Where does it say that Apistan works LONGER?
In the case of "my" numbers, one could assume that the strips were "spent" (as they were designed to do) and any remaining live mites were mites that had NOT received a lethal dose OR they were resistant, guess it depends on you mind-set









>I will make time to do more detailed and regimented treatments next year and post the results . . .
Looking forward to seeing "more results", all will be better off. Why wait 'till next year? why not do mite counts year-round.

>analytical skills . . .
"I aint got no skills". That's what I've been told all my life.

>no time . . .
There is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over. Right?









>I think you are on to something . . .
Please be careful. I may be on the wrong path. Dont follow me just because Im in front!

>It's not baffling if the treatment is, for some reason, only say, 50% effective . . .
If overall efficacy is 99% per treatment and it is applied yearly, an initial infestation of 1000 mites is roughly halved each year. It takes THREE years to reduce the population to near zero.

"My" Apistan numbers of 108 before treatment to a "69 average", which began about 21 days after insertion of strips, shows ME a very good reduction. If I had applied other equally effective treatments, (maybe?) would I now have "no mites". 

>What we need is a faster and easier way to accurately count mites...
Screened bottom board is the fastest and by far the easiest method we have to date. Everyone ('cept me) needs to learn to USE IT. (Guess I could use more "lerarnen" too)









[ November 26, 2005, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Dave W ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>When treatments (like apistan and cumophos) were 95% effective . . . 
>WERE effective? They STILL are . . . maybe 99% or greater.

Around here Apistan is a complete failure now. Checkmite seems to kill the mites and the bees.









And the Apistan resistance is not just my experience and opinion:

http://entomology.unl.edu/beekpg/tidings/btid1999/btdoct99.htm#Article3 


And in other places:

http://entomology.unl.edu/beekpg/tidings/btid1997/btiddc97.htm#Item1

[ November 26, 2005, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Michael Bush ]


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Michael Bush . . . 

I read often (here and other places) about Apristan resistance. It may be a problem for some.
You have often explained your experience w/ Apistan very well.

May I ask (w/ utmost respect) you to explain "reversion", what it is, how it works, etc. AND if reversion is not working in your area, who do you thing MIGHT be still misusing the product or its base chemical.

MrBEE, Thank You.

Dave W

-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB, no other information than dated 1997?? I think there has been alot learned since then. I highly doubt the same bees and mites are still around. I view these type reports as red flags to learn by, and point out what can and does happen. But to constantly refer back to them as justification and fact regarding todays bees and mite situation 8 years later???

In the past two years, I have found one beekeeper that had no idea how he acquired resistant mites. The others who had resistant mites fell into two catagories. 
1)Beekeepers who used the same type strips year after year.
2)Beekeepers who left the strips on the hive over-winter and for extended periods of time.

Other ways to obtain resistant mites are from producers, and being close to commercial operations. Knowing who you buy bees from, and where your bees are located is important. Very slim chance for much of the beekeeping community in regards to just achieving mite resistance without your own fault coming into play. 

It is highly unlikely for someone who did have resistant mites years ago, to have them now. When was the last time some of these people claiming resistant mites, completed a pettis test?

The vast majority of beekeeper who have not overused one type strip, or who has rotated treatment types, will not and does not have resistant mites. And in doing test on variuos commercial treatments on the market now, it is questionable if anything even now approaches the strips in effectiveness. Many of the second generation treatments now obtainable are 60% to 90% effective at best.

Am I pushing chems? No. But unless you brought the resistant to your hives yourself, you have a slim chance of having resistant mites.

For those who do use chems, rotation is the key.

If the state programs, and bee industry itself wants to limit the use of strips, and I have no problem with that, than do it above board. Many fear public backlash if tainted honey is found. Many are worried about marketing and the bigger picture of the industry. And thats not bad either. But I have seen states push for treatments that are questionable at best, all the while making statements of "resistance" with little actual problems other than those beekeepers that are causing the problem on themselves and effecting nobody else. And so the hobbiest is out there being told not to use something because of "resistance" they don't have, and the commercial guys are dumping chems in the hives like there is no tomorrow.

I for one think too much is aimed at the once or twice a year treatment of mites, and much of one's success has more to do with the other 11 months out of the year. 

Here in Pa. we pushed for mite-away, and due to late season high temps, many were just beginning treatments in mid-October after following the state and other bee clubs advise. I think many killed lots of mites. But I question if the colonies had time to raise healthy bees to make it through winter. By the first of November cold weather set in and brood all but stopped. Telling people that the strips were useless and having beekeepers treat as labling instructions, using it after the heat decreased I feel hurt many hives. Time will tell. I think I would of rather had hives treated early and had healthy brood in September and October. But many are under the impression that strips are no good any longer and this was thier best choice. Thats crap.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

BjornBee . . .

>I for one think too much is aimed at the once or twice a year treatment of mites, and much of one's success has more to do with the other 11 months out of the year. 

Me too! I want to know more about "the other 11 months out of the year" (and reserve the right to change my mind later).


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> If overall efficacy is 99% per treatment and it is applied yearly, an initial infestation of 1000 mites is roughly halved each year. It takes THREE years to reduce the population to near zero.


Ok, I'll bite. Please explain. Perhaps efficacy (the power to produce an effect) and effective or effectiveness (producing a desired effect) are being confused. I sure am. I think that something touted as "99% effective" or posessing an "efficacy of 99%" mean essentially the same thing to the average idiot (like me).

I suppose something could be really really good at producing an effect and yet not actually be very effective i.e., "100% guaranteed to kill 10% of your mites". Is this all a word game? Is this all explained in the small print? Or, as is often the case, am I missing something?

Why would a treatment with an efficacy of 99% only halve your mite population every year?

George-


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Dave,
I give a talk called "building a silver bullet, one B-B at a time". It touches on the many things that beekeepers can do to help thier hives if only 5% at a time. It is based on taking advantage of every little angle you can take advantage of. Many of the items I see daily as being forgotten or unknown by many beekeepers. 

I will not type out the entire talk now but some examples....Keeping in mind that no single item will make or break a hive....

Everyone knows that culling drone brood can have an impact on mites. So why use wax foundation, that gets chewed on the edges and may be filled in with drone comb. Using full sheets of plastic, preferably pierco with a smaller cell size, will force bees to use the entire sheet and limit drone comb.

Full sun hives. A hive in the sun will work earlier in the mornng, earlier in the spring, later in the day, later in the fall. Will this impact honey production? What about just taking into account the extra time for bees to do routine items such as housecleaning. What about releasing more bees from keeping brood warm, and allowing more bees to do other tasks. Impacts on secondary deseases?

Moisture concerns. I mention screened bottom boards and upper entrances to many beekeepers and the have no idea what I am talking about.

It talks of combining hives and culling the weak. Splitting the srong. Perpetuating your own genetics.

Oil benefits and smoke residue issues in regards to enhancing hygenics and grooming.

It mentions the natural winter kill. And if you want ten hives next spring, how about considering going into winter with a few extra nucs or hives and forgetting the chems altogether. It asks "can you stomach no treatments at all?"

It talks about the actual cost of a dead hive($15 at most). Dead bees versus ruined comb. And how to make up for them in the spring.

It is mainly based on taking what the bees give you and going from there. It is about perhaps taking a winter-kill rate of 50 to 75% without treatments, and getting it down naturally to 20 to 40%. (I have less than that with some genetic lines with no treatments) And manageing an operation or at least having the mind-set to deal with that loss. It is not based on trying to save every hive.

Even if no treatments is not considered, can hive death be limited by other non-chem approaches?

It talks of beekeeper mistakes with feeding, fall brood, swarming, timing of treatments, and the other 11 months that matter.

Those are some of the highlights and points. There are many more. I have my talk in "note" form. But one day I will type it out. Many items have been discussed here on this forum at one time or another. But who really culls comb? Who really pinches queens and combines versus those who do everything in thier power to save every hive? Who really changes comb on a 5 year replacement basis? It highlights many items that are known to be good for the hive, but forgotten in one way or another. It is designed to have you think in terms other than the big discussion of "what are you treating with this year?"

[ November 26, 2005, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: BjornBee ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>MB, no other information than dated 1997?? I think there has been alot learned since then. I highly doubt the same bees and mites are still around. I view these type reports as red flags to learn by, and point out what can and does happen. But to constantly refer back to them as justification and fact regarding todays bees and mite situation 8 years later???

That's just the web link and the research on it, and it was done in 1999 (not 1997). My Apistan failure was in 2001 and I've not used it since. Others have reported total failure where they had been getting control, as recent as this last winter. Some with devastating losses. My point of the link is that research was done on the subject and it's not just speculation. From talking to Dr. Marion Ellis, and the beekeepers here, it has failed pretty constistently here, since that time.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB,
Are you suggesting that going from speculation to fact is still in question?

Your second website has a big "1997" on the top. I though you were referencing this as you posted the website yourself. Maybe they were referencing mite resistance research from 1999 in the 1997 newsletter. I've seen stranger things..

[ November 26, 2005, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: BjornBee ]


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>Ok, I'll bite.

DO NOT BITE, kick or screem, this is called BEEKEEPING!









The words you put into the "quote" are a "direct" qoute from VARROAPOP article YOU have posted elsewhere . . . have you read it?









>Please explain . . .
My best effort would include something about "the mites reproducing and NOT killing mites in brood cells. Thats my best!









My "thinking" is the same as yours (are we both Idiots?). I do not know what "99% effective" really means . . . in beekeeing.

>"100% guaranteed to kill 10% of your mites" . . .
THATS GREAT! You are a marketing genius! The folks at Suckercide will be greatful









BjornBee . . .
Wish you would record (on mini-cassette) your talk sometime (when you are really fired-up) and let me $BUY$ a copy.

I think many of us may not only "forget what to do", but dont know "how to do" as well. Just think about how many "ways" and "things" are available for the ONE thing called "treatment".
Its no wonder so many NewBees never make it over the "hump".

[ November 26, 2005, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Dave W ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> The words you put into the "quote" are a "direct" qoute from VARROAPOP article YOU have posted elsewhere . . . have you read it?


Doh! You're talking about the varroa population model paper by Stephen Martin (which has nothing to do with VarroaPop BTW). To be honest, I kinda skimmed over the part about treatments because that wasn't my primary interest at the time- I was more interested in mite population growth, not the effect (efficacy?) of treatments. It's certainly worthy of further study however- I was going to go through that paper a few more times before trying to interpret YOUR data... I've given it some thought, but haven't got a round tuit yet. Somewhere in another thread (we're having too much fun) I suggested that your apistan treatment killed about 75% of the mites in your hive. I suspect that's not far from the truth.

>are we both Idiots?

Yes! I mean No! And don't play dumb with me Dave, I'm better at it than you are!

I've just looked over that section of Martin's paper dealing with the application of acaricides and that statement *does* make sense now... It helps to look at the pictures (graphs) too







They're NOT saying a 99% effective treatment only kills 50% of the mites. Phew









While you're at it, look at Fig. 7 in relation to your Apistan treatment and drop numbers. It shows the actual drop counts from an 80% effective acaricide applied to a real colony. The drop falls off big time in about 3 weeks. Sound familiar?

I think people use "efficacy" because it's a neat word. One could ask "What's the efficacy of that treatment?" or "How effective is that treatment?" and mean exactly the same thing. I was just reading a paper by Medhat Nasr entitled "Efficacy of Three Miticides...." and it goes on to say "Apistan(r) was the most effective treatment."

I like simple words that are less likely to confuse people.

George-


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Your second website has a big "1997" on the top.

And it follows a reference to that fact that there are apistan resitant mites in other places.

>I though you were referencing this as you posted the website yourself. Maybe they were referencing mite resistance research from 1999 in the 1997 newsletter. I've seen stranger things..

The first reference said:

>And the Apistan resistance is not just my experience and opinion:

http://entomology.unl.edu/beekpg/tidings/btid1999/btdoct99.htm#Article3

And this is research done in 1999. But the relevance is that beekepers here have had pretty much complete failure of Apistan since that time and have reached the point where it is no longer a viable solution here. The beekeepers here who haven't figured that out are experiencing devastating losses.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

The development of resistance is an interesting biological phenomena. The ability of varroa (or any insect) to develop resistance to a given chemical must already be present in the population for it to occur. If this genetic propensity does exist, then given repeated treatments, increased resistance is inevitable.

It can also happen quite quickly- evidence of increasing resistance can appear in just a few generations. Certain practices (sub-lethal doses, over-exposure) can accelerate the process. Following the label directions of an acaricide will only slow down the process, it will not prevent it.

Resistance is typically a localized phenomena, but the migration of resistant mites can and does occur and it's not uncommon for you to find resistant mites in your colonies even if you've never treated them.

Treatment is futile! We will be assimilated!

George-


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

George "it is not uncommon for you to find resistant mites in your colonies even if youv'e never treated them"

Can you "ballpark" the statistical rate of what you think "not uncommon" is? Or better yet are there any actual rates published or studies performed?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> Can you "ballpark" the statistical rate of what you think "not uncommon" is? Or better yet are there any actual rates published or studies performed?


Well, I'd say without blinking that if a given treatment is "99% effective" then 1% of the mites are effectively resistant from the get-go. This may be because they receive a sub-lethal dose or because they are in fact already resistant i.e., naturally, or they've been exposed before and lived, or their predecessors were exposed and survived and the resistance trait has been passed on to them. All these survivors have to do is breed, and you're on your way. Insects are incredibly tough!

It's been said many times that no pesticide is 100% effective and this statement no doubt reflects the natural tolerance or resistance in the target population. As populations become resistant and migrate, you're likely to find mites with some level of resistance in your hives even if you have never treated them. So, it's perfectly reasonable to treat with a 99% effective treatment and in fact only kill 80% of the mites. Or 50%. Or 10%. Or none. What you're going to see in your hives depends entirely on where your mites came from and what they've been treated with in the past.

One way of obtaining resistant mites is by purchasing packages/nucs that have been treated. Any live mites in that package are potential progenitors of a new, resistant population. Then there's robbing of deadouts, drones drifting, etc. The bottom line is, it doesn't matter if you use Apistan or not- eventually you'll end up with fluvalinate-resistant mites. Proper use of the product only delays the inevitable- improper use of the product hastens it.

I haven't found any studies of actual rates of the development of resistance, but I believe from what I've read that it can develop very quickly i.e., it starts immediately with the first application. Any mites not killed in the initial treatment will mate, and their offspring will inherit some measure of resistance. Given the rate at which mites reproduce, I'd guess we're talking months, not years, to breed an effectively resistant population. I'd expect you could see, if you looked, the development of resistance manifest even between successive treatments i.e., reduced efficacy over the course of a season.

I haven't dug too deeply into this subject except to try to figure out Davew's mite counts. If anyone has information on the development of resistance, I'd love to hear it.

George-


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

George, everything you said is correct. I mention alternative means of obtaining resistance. That being thrugh purchases and also being in close quarters to a commercial operation, etc. I have also pointed out that using the same type strips year after year, and allowing strips to be left in for long periods of time will cause resistance. All that is well documented.

Not counting the commercail operation that have been using mavrik and are much more apt to have resistance, I have seen very little in the way of resistance in the hobbiest beekeepers operation. I would list the chances of having resistant mites about the same as contracting AFB. If you did not cause it, or bring it into your operation, than resistance is almost non-existant. The same can be said for AFB. Very little just shows up out of the blue. And thats not to say it won't, and in some areas it may be more than average, but the actual number is very low. Nothing in the "common" range. In all the cases of resistance I have tested for in two years, only one could be called "resistant mites from never having used chemicals". Every other case involved the annual use of the same strip or the leaving in the strips over winter.

I actually talk to many about alternative treatments other than chemicals strips. Options are out there. I also see many others lose hives that do not use chemicals. But claiming resistance can not be done with some other options. But if you use chems, and lose a hive, it automatically called resistance in many cases. Very few beekeepers do pettis tests to determine if the chems failed or if other secondary measures caused the hives to crash. If we allowed this kind of rationale to be used everyday, many other claims would be still be out there.

Is resistance out there? Sure. And it would be best as an industry to rotate and use other options. But crying wolf as a justification, and labeling resistance for those never using chems as "not uncommon" is not correct. I would venture to say that most or how about "it would be common" that many thinking they have resistant mites, never tested for it, and would not know a pettis test if it was in front of them. Just my humble opinion based on observations......


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>But if you use chems, and lose a hive, it automatically called resistance in many cases.

Too true. I've also heard rumors about oxalic acid and formic acid resistant mites and I'd be the first to suggest that there was likely some other cause at work- I myself have had limited success with OA vapor and I'm 99% sure it wasn't the OA, but my application of it that was at fault.

>Is resistance out there? Sure. And it would be best as an industry to rotate and use other options. But crying wolf as a justification, and labeling resistance for those never using chems as "not uncommon" is not correct.

Then we can agree to disagree. I've never used hard chemicals on my bees and I am virtually certain that my mites have some measure of acquired resistance to Apistan and I'm sure that many other beekeepers are in the same situation. My situation is not all that unique. All mites naturally have some measure of resistance to Apistan- the only question is whether it's enough to keep them from being killed. If it is, then they can and will, in the face of continued treatment, establish a resistant population.

We agree on the important details- that repeated and/or improper use of chemicals can and has lead to resistance and will continue to do so.

The irony is that given the general widespread use of chemicals and the nature of bee commerce, whether it's through package or nuc sales, buying existing hives, or simply having migratory or commercial beekeepers in your neighborhood, the mites that are likely to find their way onto your bees are those very mites that have developed some level of resistance to chemical treatment. It only stands to reason. Look at the way mites spread around the country in the first place. Resistance isn't a local or even regional problem. It's an international problem.

There are a lot of factors at work. For one thing, the mite population country-wide isn't homogenous- there are different strains, some of which are likely to be more naturally resistant to chemicals than others- they'll proliferate. Also, resistance isn't an on/off thing- there are degrees of resistance ranging from almost none to totally resistant. Even the pettis test results are interpreted as "less resistant" (i.e., go ahead and treat) and "more resistant" (i.e., don't waste your money).

I'm not going to use Apistan on my hives- I know for a fact that it has been used in the past on the 20 hives I got this past summer from a migratory beekeeper and that it is no longer an effective mite treatment for those hives- the beekeeper told me so. The 6 nucs I started last May were also treated with Apistan before I got them and I assume the mites in those hives have more than the average level of resistance already.

In looking at Davew's mite counts for the periods before, during, and after his Apistan treatment, it is clear to me at least that it was not 99% effective at killing his mites. I estimate it was at most about 75% effective. What else besides resistance to the treatment can explain his data?

George-


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

George, I'm not sure if a 75% kill would classify something as resistant because it was not higher or something approaching 100%, but many of the other options on the market only wish they could get close to a 75% kill. I'll take 75% any day after looking at some of the other options.  

For the record, none of my hives were chemically treated this year. And I had an offer from the state to treat some of my hives at no expense to me. I turned it down.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I'll take 75% any day after looking at some of the other options.

Hehe... that IS the other side of the coin Bjornbee







It always helps to be able to look at both sides of a situation.

>For the record, none of my hives were chemically treated this year. And I had an offer from the state to treat some of my hives at no expense to me. I turned it down

Glad to hear it. And you turned down an offer for free state-sponsored pollution of your hives? What ever were you thinking!










George-


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

george ferguson ask:
What else besides resistance to the treatment can explain his data?

tecumseh replies:
now first of all I am not trying to trow stones at dave w (matter of fact I would give dave a much deserved atta boy for his effort), but any number of process or random factors 'might' explain the numbers beyond natural resistance.

we could present any number of questions to 'rationalize' dave w lack of results.

was the product prepared properly? any product that is diluted to 25 ml/gallon is some what likely to reflect improper concentration.

was the product delivered in a proper manner? with a very small quantity delivered per frame again the likelyhood that each and every frame received the exact porper dose is highly unlikely.

someone else has suggested that a reinfection vector from exposure to large numbers (commercial operation) of hives might be a contributing factor., 

and a fourth alternative answer would be that even a 'precise' application (in regards to the two mixing problems-suggest above) anyone is quite likely to randomly miss spraying each and every bee within the hive. for example I, did notice that when I started using sucrocide that the returning field bees began to build up on the front of the hives (I suspect the smell discouraged them from entering the hive) where they accumulated in large numbers and it was only after this behavior was noted that I took the time to throughly spray these clumps.

I would suspect (as someone has suggest previously) that the real problem is defining some routine that acts as a proper statistic for predicting total mite numbers. That is, a routine whereby the sample accurately reflect the true number of mites within the hive. 

Lastly, (and as I have stated previously) dave w's numbers are much constrained by the fact that he has done this entire process on only one hive. We can not even make a quess as to what the 'true' mean or distribution (deviation from mean) of the sucrocide effect might have been. 

final note:
even if the product is 99% effective then repeated (cruch the numbers using an infinite number of applications if you so desire) application would never irradicate the mite population within a given hive. if you harbor some thought that you can irradicate this (or for that matter any other) pest then you do need to read a bit more on past efforts using this flawed mind set.

anyway.... great discussion and I certainly hope all you folks had a great thanksgiving.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> we could present any number of questions to 'rationalize' dave w lack of results.


I would have to agree Tecumseh if we'd been talking about Sucrocide, but we were discussing the use of Apistan strips. It's a lot harder to foul up the use of those, though I'm sure some people could manage! Davew however seems quite fastidious and meticulous. I doubt he failed to follow the directions!

Nonetheless, you raise some good points. I do however take exception to a couple of statements:



> I would suspect (as someone has suggest previously) that the real problem is defining some routine that acts as a proper statistic for predicting total mite numbers. That is, a routine whereby the sample accurately reflect the true number of mites within the hive.


While there is at first glance a disconcertingly large range in the multipliers given for estimating mite populations from daily drop counts and some uncertainty as to which one to use when, it becomes clear upon further examination that there's a good reason for this range. Studies show that the the rates of mite mortality and subsequent mite fall are relatively constant during periods when there is active brood rearing and those periods when there is none. However, there are other factors that can affect mite mortality including whether brood rearing is ramping up, constant, or slowing down, how much brood there is, how much drone brood, how many mites enter each cell to mate, the strain of bee (hygenic traits), and environmental factors, to name a few. That's without taking into account the action (or inaction) and possibly lingering effects of treatments, correctly or incorrectly applied!

In other words, there are a lot of factors at work and stating that "mite populations can be estimated by multiplying the daily drop counts by 20-40 when there is brood present and 250-500 when there is none" would suggest we just don't know what's going on in there, but I would say that is not correct or at least, not entirely relevant. We don't know exactly what's going on in there, but we have a pretty good idea. We can derive a relatively precise (if not highly accurate) estimate of total mite population, if we look at data covering a sufficient period of time. Short of ether-rolling the entire hive and counting every single mite and those in cells reproducing, it's as close as we're going to get. I don't see that as "the real problem". If your hive dies from mite infestation, does it really matter if there was a 5% or 10% level of uncertainty in the total number of mites responsible?



> Lastly, (and as I have stated previously) dave w's numbers are much constrained by the fact that he has done this entire process on only one hive. We can not even make a quess as to what the 'true' mean or distribution (deviation from mean) of the sucrocide effect might have been.


Oh go ahead Tecumseh, take a shot at it









It would be nice to have detailed data on a lot of hives, but in this case and a lot of real world situations, we don't. I'm not going to tell Davew that he wasted his time collecting data on just one hive! I don't think he did!

Statisticians are always happier with lots of data to crunch so they can obtain statistically significant conclusions. They are inclined to hedge and waffle when they don't have sufficient data to arrive at statistically defensible conclusions. I understand completely. That said, relax! Nobody's going to hold you responsible for inaccurate conclusions based on insufficient data! Go out on a limb, we won't saw it off on you









>anyway.... great discussion and I certainly hope all you folks had a great thanksgiving.

In deed, a great discussion. And thanksgiving wasn't bad either.

George-


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Boy! Sounds like some of us know what we are talking about.









Here is something I dont agree with . . . Im sure it has something to do w/ mind-set.

If I treat w/"water, air or honey" and some of the mites do not come in contact w/ whats applied, why are the remaining mites that are not killed thought to be resistant?

Is it possible to apply a treatment that is "100% effective" and only kill 99, 75 or 20% of the mites present? Are they resistant?

>atta boy for his effort . . .
Thank you. And the rest of what you said may be true too


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

George . . .

>the varroa population model paper by Stephen Martin (which has nothing to do with VarroaPop BTW).
Are you sure?

>They're NOT saying a 99% effective treatment only kills 50% of the mites . . .
They ARE saying that 99% of the mites are NOT killed by JUST ONE treatment using a 99% effective treatment.

>"efficacy" or "How effective" . . .
The use of the word is easy to understand. Its how beekeepers (and other) "define" or in most cases, how they "arrive" at the number thats hard to understand.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Well, if it kills 99% of the phoretic mites and you treat during a time when there is brood, it's quite possible that 66% of the mites are in the cells and not affected by the treatment at all. That's still 99% effective on the phoretic mites.

I think this is a problem in assessing the efficacy of any treatment. With mites constantly emerging it's hard to say how effective something is whether it's Apistan or FGMO or Sucrocide. Until all the mites have been exposed (such as leaving the Apistan in for three weeks) or treating constantly with the FGMO or every week with Sucrocide, you can't really assess it very well.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

MrBEE . . .

>Well, if it kills 99% of the phoretic mites and you treat during a time when there is brood, it's quite possible that 66% of the mites are in the cells and not affected by the treatment at all. That's still 99% effective on the phoretic mites.

Thats an "efficacy" I have never heard before. I agree w/ what you said, but not sure thats what I expect "99% effective" to mean.

George . . .
>Apistan treatment . . . The drop falls off big time in about 3 weeks. Sound familiar? 
Sure does!

>The ability of varroa (or any insect) to develop resistance to a given chemical must already be present in the population . . .
Here is a quote from Mr. Laurence Cutts, Chief of Apiary Inspections (Retired?), Florida Dept of Ag.
Its not known exactly how parasites become resistant to chemicals. Some think a sub-lethal dose is not killing 100% and the mites gradually get used to it. Others think theres always a mite that is resistant and its that one mite that reproduces. From Bayer Technical Guide, 1998, p8.

>Treatment is futile! We will be assimilated!
Or just stop using the chemical and the resistance goes away.

The brother-sister mating of Varroa within capped brood cell (inbreeding) results in little or no mating w/ incoming susceptible mites. Thus, once resistance is present in a population, all mite offspring will be very resistant. However, a genetic factor affects the progression of resistance, the inability of resistant individuals to live and reproduce. Resistant individuals are usually not as fit as susceptible one, meaning they tend not to survive and reproduce as well as susceptible individuals [BC, 11/05, p56]. 

Pesticide resistance is not normally a stable trait once it is established. Resistant populations tend to revert back to some degree of susceptibility after the active ingredient is not used for a period of time as susceptible individuals out-compete resistant individuals or immigrate into the population [BC, 11/05, p56]. The process of resistance is somewhat reversible, if a period of abstinence from the pesticide can be maintained. In a population of honey bees, where only 10% of the mites were killed by fluvalinate, mortality of the mites increased to 50% in just 9 months (Elzen and Westervelt, 2004). This increase in susceptibility suggest that mite programs that rely on chemical treatments should most definitely rotate treatments being used [BC, 3/05, p19].

> Disconcertingly large range in the multipliers given for estimating mite populations from daily drop counts and some uncertainty as to which one to use . . . 
> Multiply daily drop counts by 20-40 when there is brood present and 250-500 when there is none . . .
George, is the only threshold you know about? 

> Does it really matter if there was a 5% or 10% level of uncertainty . . .
If we use my drop of 108 and multiply by 40, we get 4,320. My Apistan killed 15,341. Is that only a 5 or 10% level of uncertainty? Somehow, I read it saying this formula aint worth a squat!


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> Boy! Sounds like some of us know what we are talking about.


Oh really? Who?



> If I treat w/"water, air or honey" and some of the mites do not come in contact w/ whats applied, why are the remaining mites that are not killed thought to be resistant?


Well, they're not- not in my mind anyways. Of course they might be, but we don't know because they didn't get dosed. I'd say they're lucky









For a mite to be considered resistant to a given treatment they need to receive what is deemed to be a lethal dose and survive. A lethal dose is I believe defined as that dose that kills a majority of the mites, or something like that. If they receive a sub-lethal dose, they'll live. They have *some* measure of resistance i.e., they are resistant to the dose/exposure they received, which might have been miniscule. However, dispensing a sub-lethal dose is a great way to help your mites develop more resistance- it selects for reproduction those mites with some measure of resistance by virtue of having killed off those mites with less resistance.

Resistance is a range really, not an on-off, either/or situation. Given some concentration (and duration of exposure) of a pesticide, some mites will survive, some will die. Increase the concentration and more will die, but some will still survive. Increase it further and more mites will die. Eventually you reach a concentration and/or exposure above/beyond which no more mites die. This then is the "lethal" dose that kills the "majority" of the mites. In the case of Apistan, a "majority" is 99%. Any mites that aren't killed by this concentration are resistant.



> Is it possible to apply a treatment that is "100% effective" and only kill 99, 75 or 20% of the mites present? Are they resistant?


Sure it's possible and in my opinion in the above scenario any mites that received a lethal dose and did not die must, by definition, be resistant. Of course, the treatment must be properly administered in the correct concentration for the proper amount of time yada yada...

One interesting thing to remember is that varroa mites are particularly good at developing resistance in a population because of the way they breed i.e., they often inbreed. If a treatment is administered, any phoretic mites that aren't killed because they're resistant to the treatment will eventually enter cells to breed. Their daughters will mate with their son and will without fail inherit the resistance gene of the mother. No non-resistant genes get in the way. Without treatments, the resistance trait is not specifically selected. By treating, we are unwittingly selecting for resistance within a population that is very cooperative.

Scary eh? Is there any GOOD news? Yes, sort of. It turns out that resistance isn't a permanent condition. Stop using the pesticide to which they've become resistant and the resistance within the population will diminish over time, eventually to it's original pre-treatment level. They'll still have the original genetic predisposition for resistance, but they're back at square one. I dunno how long this reversion process takes but I'd guess it's comparable to or longer than the resistance-building process.

This is another reason why it's recommended to mix your chemicals- it helps prevent them from developing resistance and also gives them time to lose what resistance they've developed. I learned this reading my latest Bee Culture last night









I'm beginning to sound like a proponent of chemical treatments. Don't be fooled.

George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> >the varroa population model paper by Stephen Martin (which has nothing to do with VarroaPop BTW).
> Are you sure?


I dunno. Could be wrong. Been wrong before. Stephen Martin is in the UK and wrote his paper in 1997; VarroaPop was developed by Dr. Gloria DeGrandi-Hoffman at the Carl Hayden Bee Research Center in Tucson AZ and is copyrighted 1999-2002. I don't know if Martin's model was used in DeGrandi-Hoffman's program. I guess I wouldn't be surprised, either way. I just assume VarroaPop is based on another model.



> >They're NOT saying a 99% effective treatment only kills 50% of the mites . . .
> They ARE saying that 99% of the mites are NOT killed by JUST ONE treatment using a 99% effective treatment.


I think they ARE saying that, but it only makes sense if you look at the picture









Look at Fig. 8. Note that the initial population of 1000 mites is at the beginning of the year. The treatment is given at roughly 6 months by which time the actual mite population looks to have increased to about 3600. Killing 99% of that number leaves, oh, say 80 mites in the hive. The next treatment is 1 year later by which time the 80 mites have grown to what looks to be about 300 mites. 99% of those mites are killed, leaving um.. 3 mites.. which again, manage to reproduce some by the time the 3rd treatment is given a year later, which finally wipes `em all out









Are we confused yet?

George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> >Apistan treatment . . . The drop falls off big time in about 3 weeks. Sound familiar?
> Sure does!


The difference is that their counts dropped off to near zero and yours leveled off at some goodly number like 45. The implication is that your apistan treatment was less effective than the advertised 99% but the curve *looks* about the same.

OK Dave... I hadn't planned on doing this just now, but you asked me to "run the numbers" on your apistan treatment, so here they are, for what they're worth. Bear with me while my agonizing and convoluted thought-processes dribble onto the page...

Wildly speculating here, what if your treatment WAS 99% effective? If you work it backwards and figure that 45 mites falling per day post-treatment represents a total population of 1800 mites (45 * 40) and that figure represents 1% of what you had before apistan treatment i.e., what was left after killing 99% of the mites... then your pretreatment mite population was around 180,000 mites (180,000 * 0.01 = 1800).... With that kind of population, you'd be dropping 4000+ mites a day, a wee bit more than the 108 you were actually seeing which corresponds to around 4320 mites. Scratch the easy answer.

OK. So. It's reasonable to assume you did NOT have 180,000 mites in your hive pre-treatment and since we're off by a few orders of magnitude, therefore also reasonable to assume that the apistan treatment did not kill 99% of your mites. How much did it kill, and (to heck with efficacy) what was it's effectiveness?

For starters, let's assume a static mite population for the treatment period (not a valid assumption BTW) and assume that the real kill percentage is the ratio between the mites killed and the number of original mites:

(4320 - 1800) / 4320 = 58% effectiveness

As much as I'd like apistan to suck this badly, there's something wrong with this picture too. For one thing, you counted a LOT more than 2520 dead mites during treatment. How can this be?

First, the drop counts represent normal mite mortality (mites that died in the cell) from normal reproduction AND mites killed by the apistan. So during the treatment, your population was growing. Mites were entering cells, multiplying, breeding, and emerging. If we figure the population grew at the rate of .021 per day (Martin) then your original population of 4320 possibly grew to as much as 10558 mites in the 42 days you treated. If we use THIS figure as the number of mites you'd WOULD have had if you hadn't treated then it looks like this:

(10558 - 1800) / 10558 = 83% effectiveness

By this reckoning, you killed 8758 mites. Does this number pass the straight-faced test? During treatment you actually counted something on the order of 15064 mites... if we figure 1/3 of these represent "normal" mite mortality (justified given the time of year and the fact that brood rearing is slowing down) that you'd have seen even if you HADN'T treated, then you should have killed the rest or about 9942 mites. This is pretty close to 8758, a little more than 10%. Close enough for government work.

So. Running your numbers by the seat of my pants leads me to conclude that you started with 4320 mites, killed 8758 mites, ended up with 1800 mites, and that your apistan treatment was 83% effective, more or less. Not far off from my original guestimate of 75%.

I'd ask for your money back









Have I forgotten something? Sure, probably. I've no doubt neglected some terms (hopefully small ones) mainly because I have no idea what they all are







One thing I don't know about is if the rate of population growth is the same (0.021 per day) during treatment as it is normally, or is it less? More? Dunno. This would affect the total population and hence the calculation of the effectiveness of the treatment. I don't think it's huge. Have I forgotten something huge? I don't think so, I think I got the big ones. I think you could throw a whole bunch of small terms in the pot and not really change anything significant.

How confident am I of the results? Given the range in the multiplier (20-40) for figuring mite population from drop counts, I'm not too confident of the before/after mite numbers. They could be off by by 50%. This would NOT affect the effectiveness of the treatment. Using a multiplier of 20 to figure the populations yields:

(5279 - 900) / 5279 = 83% effectiveness

The same. So. Your mite population figures are +/- 50%, you might have ended up with 1800 mites, or 900 mites after treatment. I dunno, don't really care, and it doesn't really *matter* as the ratio stays the same







As for the effectiveness, I'm guessing if anything it's optimistic- I suspect the population growth rate is actually less during treatment, you are after all trying to poison them and I'd expect this would hamper their reproductive efforts, so your total population would be less than 10550 and your effectiveness would drop. If total population was lower by 10% then your effectiveness would drop to 81%. If total population was higher by 10% your effectiveness would increase to 85%. Since I don't know what the REAL rate is, I'll stick with 0.021 per day.

So I'll go out on a limb and say the effectiveness of your treatment was 83% +/- 5% simply based on my gut feeling. Is that Techumseh I hear spitting up on his keyboard?

George-


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

george ferguson adds:
Statisticians are always happier with lots of data to crunch so they can obtain statistically significant conclusions.

tecumseh replies:
where, or from whom, did you derive this idea?

statistician require a certain minimum sample size to make certain that the 'true' population is being accurately reflected. the primary measures employed are generally central tendency (mean) and distribution (standard deviation). now a statistician might employ different statistical tools to determine when the result are considered significant or not, but as a general rule larger sample sizes implies greater confidence in the estimation and very small sample size (read 1) imples zero confindence in the estimator. this is VERY basic to statistical analysis, but I am just a beekeeper so what the heck do I know anyway? 

then George Ferguson adds:
Look at Fig. 8.

tecumseh suggest:
plug in michael bush assumption above and see how you numbers fall completely apart. ie what happed to the 2400 mites that were not treated. and of course your entire mathmatical reduction does not even consider any (read 0) reinfection vector.

like I have stated earlier if your mind has expectation or irradicating these little buggers you are bound to be nothing but disappointed. 

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


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

george ferguson adds:
Statisticians are always happier with lots of data to crunch so they can obtain statistically significant conclusions.

tecumseh replies:
where, or from whom, did you derive this idea?

statistician require a certain minimum sample size to make certain that the 'true' population is being accurately reflected. the primary measures employed are generally central tendency (mean) and distribution (standard deviation). now a statistician might employ different statistical tools to determine when the result are considered significant or not, but as a general rule larger sample sizes implies greater confidence in the estimation and very small sample size (read 1) imples zero confindence in the estimator. this is VERY basic to statistical analysis, but I am just a beekeeper so what the heck do I know anyway? 

then George Ferguson adds:
Look at Fig. 8.

tecumseh suggest:
plug in michael bush assumption above and see how you numbers fall completely apart. ie what happed to the 2400 mites that were not treated. and of course your entire mathmatical reduction does not even consider any (read 0) reinfection vector.

like I have stated earlier if your mind has expectation or irradicating these little buggers you are bound to be nothing but disappointed. 

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


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> like I have stated earlier if your mind has expectation or irradicating these little buggers you are bound to be nothing but disappointed.


Absolutely, and that's not my expectation, and for what it's worth, apistan isn't my choice. I believe the "example" (Fig 8) you refer to was a theoretical "ideal" situation setup to illustrate- and dispell- the illusion that a 99% effective treatment will wipe out your mites in one swell (42-day-long) foop. I was never under that illusion and hope I didn't imply that I was!



> george ferguson adds: Statisticians are always happier with lots of data to crunch so they can obtain statistically significant conclusions.
> 
> tecumseh replies: where, or from whom, did you derive this idea?


I've been under that illusion for most of my life







FWIW, you object to my statement but I don't see you really refuting it ("as a general rule larger sample sizes implies greater confidence"). Statisticians DO prefer larger samples over small ones, more data rather than less. For that matter, I do too and I'm certainly no statistician!

But Tecumseh, don't be getting your hackles up- I'm not attacking statisticians, or statistically-conversant beekeepers (i.e., you!) nor the validity of statistical analysis. If I'm guilty of anything it's having too much fun and having too much time on my hands









I've had occassion in the past (some years ago actually) to utilize statistical analysis when I wrote a program for the reduction of solar observations for the determination of true north. Since then I've forgotten most of what I learned but I retain a basic understanding.

When I look at Davew's mite drop data, I see a HUGE amount- 3 years worth- of mite drop data. I still fail to see why the fact that it pertains to just one hive makes it "statistically worthless". We're not (at least I'm not) trying to apply Davew's results to the vast universe of hives out there- I just want to understand what's been happening in that one hive based upon the large amount of data from that one hive. Are any general conclusions based upon his data going to be generally applicable to someone else applying Sucrocide to their hive? Probably not. For that, I'd want a larger set of data collected from a lot more hives









Cheers,

George-

[ November 29, 2005, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: George Fergusson ]


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>Are we confused yet?
After a bit of "statistical analysis", Im undecided









>Are any general conclusions based upon his data going to be generally applicable to someone else applying Sucrocide to their hive? Probably not.
O, O . . . Oh! I hope you are wrong. Very wrong.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

I go mite hunting, I mean dear hunting, and use a shotgun loaded w/ strips, I mean slugs. Shoot at, I mean apply a lethal dose, at the mites, I mean deer, and it runs away, is it resistant?

My shotgun is 100% effective when properly applied. But, may not be 100% effective, 100% of the time, some deer just are not "exposed". AINT GOT NO "RESISTANT" DEER. Period. Right?

[ November 29, 2005, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Dave W ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> >Are any general conclusions based upon his data going to be generally applicable to someone else applying Sucrocide to their hive? Probably not.
> O, O . . . Oh! I hope you are wrong. Very wrong.


Well, it's a "Your Mileage May Vary" situation, Dave. Similar to when my wife and I powder sugar'd our hives and had "disappointing" results. Ours was an uncontrolled test on a few hives. Our timing probably wasn't perfect, the application rate was variable, we didn't have historical mite drop records, and the results were uncertain, though as I said, generally disappointing. Maybe the folks that dump a half pound of the stuff on the top bars of their hive are on to something besides a good way to use up a lot of powdered sugar and feed their bees at the same time. I dunno, I didn't try it, I did the dust-each-frame method which was HORRIBLY time consuming and labor intensive and categorically USELESS as a method of treating more than 2 hives, IMHO. Whatever. I can tell people THAT, but I can't honestly and with a clear conscience go around debunking powdered sugar as a mite control method simply because it didn't work for me. Other people's mileage may vary!

It's the same with your Sucrocide experience though likely there are some generalizations that can be gleaned from your experience like "lift and spray works better than trickle down". If you'd treated more hives, varying your procedure and implementing all those silly controls that skept^H^H^H^H^H people of science like to see in experiements, then perhaps your results would support a general statement about the suitability of Sucrocide for it's intended purpose, or lack thereof. As it is, I don't think you can really say "Sucrocide Sucks Pond Water" and have anyone take you very seriously. There are undoubtedly people quite happy with Sucrocide as there are people who are happy with powdered sugar.

George-


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

George . . .

If I apply my understanding of your "Apistan resistance" to Sucrocide, I see a lot of resistant bees after treatment. Right?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> I go mite hunting, I mean dear hunting, and use a shotgun loaded w/ strips, I mean slugs. Shoot at, I mean apply a lethal dose, at the mites, I mean deer, and it runs away, is it resistant?


Careful folks, stand back! He's got a gun!

No, the deer is lucky- you missed. You should have used lethal does











> My shotgun is 100% effective when properly applied. But, may not be 100% effective, 100% of the time, some deer just are not "exposed". AINT GOT NO "RESISTANT" DEER. Period. Right?


In general, the efficacy of a shotgun treatment is quite high. Very effective. Loud. Rewarding. Precise aim is not always required in fact, the efficacy can be quite high even if the gun is not fired at all, but merely waved around! But you are correct, for this virtually 100% effective treatment to live up to it's full potential, you have to take aim, pull the trigger, and actually HIT your target. Even then, your shot may not always be fatal









I gather you are struggling with the issue of resistance vs. a sub-lethal dose vs. a clean miss. Violets will accomplish nothing. Put the gun down. At the risk of stretching the simile to it's breaking point, or beyond, I'll explain it to you.

If you fire your gun at a deer, one of 4 things will happen:

1) You score a direct hit and kill the deer. Good shootin` Tex!

2) A clean miss- poor application of your highly efficaceous weapon. More practice required. The deer is lucky!

3) You hit the deer, but the bullets bounce off! The deer is resistant! You need a bigger gun! Meanwhile, the deer wanders off, raises more baby resistant deer, and pretty soon, it's not safe to go in the woods any more.

4) You hit the deer with a sub-lethal dose of high-velocity lead and it runs off. It recovers. Next season you see the same deer, shoot at it, and your bullets bounce off! It's now resistant! Hunting is futile! Your weapon is useless!

You conclude that with practice at applying your weapon, you'll bag more deer, but it seems like, for some reason, there will always be a few deer that can't be killed by your gun. Over the years you note that it seems like more and more deer are resistant to your gun, despite lots of practice in it's use. You get rid of your shotgun and buy a cannon, and for a while, you bag more deer until eventually, the deer become resistant to your cannon balls.

George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> If I apply my understanding of your "Apistan resistance" to Sucrocide, I see a lot of resistant bees after treatment. Right?


Some will no doubt be resistant, to some extent. What's the efficacy of Sucrocide anyways? You can assume, given proper application, that thems what aren't killed are resistant. What doesn't kill `em makes `em stronger..

With Surcrocide I believe failing to deliver a lethal dose is very possible because it's a contact pesticide so whether mites aren't killed because they're resistant, or because you *missed* `em isn't clear.

To determine resistance in your bees to Sucrocide, you'd need to do a variation on the Pettis test (which you'd likely have to design yourself) and preferably do it before AND after treatment. I know you can't do it before treatment now, but testing now would be um.. interesting. I haven't looked closely at your Sucrocide numbers lately...

George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> > Multiply daily drop counts by 20-40 when there is brood present and 250-500 when there is none . . .
> George, is the only “threshold” you know about?


Yes, it is. To his credit, Stephen Martin is the only person I've run across to actually state in writing a direct (albeit somewhat vague) correlation between drop counts and mite population. Of course, they could be wrong, and there could be others out there, but I haven't found `em.

All the other methods of estimating mite population require that you count mites on a sample of bees (or brood) and then estimate the total bee population. That's easier said than done, and it too has a necessarily large uncertainty in the final figure.

What's really important is knowing there's a significant difference in drop between brooding periods and non-brooding periods. Beyond that, pick a number, any number. It's all relative. It doesn't really matter whether you have 5000 mites in your hive or 10,000, only that you can compare what you had last week to what you have today.


----------



## Jackbee (Aug 26, 2005)

For control of all that may be detrimental to bees--just kill em at the end of the production period/honey flow.

Start fresh next season with new bees.

I read that just recently, somewhere on the internet, while reading and searching for all bee information that I can find, and be darn if I can remember where.

I believe that is a practice advocated and employed, by a commercial beekeeper. Canadian I believe.

At the end of the season the hives are gassed with CO2 and all bees killed. No need to worry about overwintering and all the efforts involved, which is quite much. 

At the start of the new bee year just acquire some starter set ups with fresh queens and the bees will do their thing.

If one will detach oneself from the notion of " not harming gods??? little creatures " the idea has merit.( This IS NOT intended to be a rant against any ones gods but bees are just insects after all ). If your objective is the production of honey for sale/profit, then why not do the above mentioned. 

Comments anyone?


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

george ferguson adds:
But Tecumseh, don't be getting your hackles up- I'm not attacking statisticians, or statistically-conversant beekeepers (i.e., you!) nor the validity of statistical analysis. If I'm guilty of anything it's having too much fun and having too much time on my hands.

tecumseh replies:
actually george when my hackles are raise I have pretty much already utilized my coop stick for it's intended purpose. if someone (or somebody) is to blame for this character flaw I would have to point my finger at my hillbilly genes (which is thankfully a recessive trait).

to be quite clear george your stated observation about statistician is pretty much my own observation about a certain kind of $cientist type that has enough experience to pick and choose the data points so that a predetermined conclusion is the obvious results. I pretty much look at statistician as the accountants of science, which is to say that if you insist that a statistician utilizes a tool that really does not apply it is hardly the statistician fault that your analysis is flawed from the start.

And as to the offense of having (in my own words) 'way toooo much fun', it seems hardly like a crime and is the likely prime mover as to why tecumseh picked up his hive tool once again as I approached retirement age. livin' in a glass house, tecumseh would seem to be well advise not to throw stones. 

and then george ferguson adds:
I still fail to see why the fact that it pertains to just one hive makes it "statistically worthless".

tecumseh fills in a few blanks:
I think davew effort would fall into what science would call allegorical evidence. which in my mind is definitely not worthless in that such efforts provides valuable direction in how to focus you next effort. as you likely know... any number of statistical operations require that you take the sample size  and subtract 1 (in chi square analysis this is called degrees of freedom) which in davew case results in a number 0 that provides some difficulty if you are attempting certain kinds of mathmatical manipulations.

as to the more practical aspects of davew data I think you have done a very good job (in the post that followed my previous post) of fleshing out some of these limitations.


----------



## Jerry Simmons (Nov 19, 2005)

Jackbee says;
"For control of all that may be detrimental to bees--just kill em at the end of the production period/honey flow.

Start fresh next season with new bees."

I ask;

If everyone killed off the bees, where would you get them for next season? No bees means no bees. 

But someone is going to have to raise them through winter and those bees will have the same problems you were trying to get rid of by killing off your stock.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>why not do the above mentioned. Comments anyone?

If anyone wants to do this and lives anywhere close to me, call me. I'll come and shake the bees out and take them off your hands.

>But someone is going to have to raise them through winter and those bees will have the same problems you were trying to get rid of by killing off your stock.

Exactly.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Gerorge . . . 

Here are just a few NATURAL FALL THRESHOLDS (without acaricide present). I others for "bee exams" or "brood examination" which I didnt include, but would be happy to provide.

THRESHOLD using MITES per DAY

* Ratio of falling to total live mites in a colony is largely unknown. Daily ratio of live to dead (fallen) mites change dramatically between the times brood is present and absent [http://www.culturaapicola.com.ar/apuntes/sanidad/ecol20%monogr.pdf  p12, Accessed 11/9/05].

1) Mite population can be estimated by multiplying daily mite drop by 250-500 in winter (broodless period) or 20-40 in summer (brood present) [http://www.culturaapicola.com.ar/apuntes/sanidad/ecol monogr.pdf  p1 and p13, Accessed 11/9/05].

2) According to British scientists, colony collapse is likely by end of season if 24-hr mite fall is greater than 0.5 mites/day in winter, 6 mites/day in spring, 10 mites/day in early summer, 16 mites/day in mid-summer, 33 mites/day in late summer and 20 mites/day in autumn [http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests-diseases/animals/varroa/guidelines/control.htm  p36, Accessed 8/1/05].

3) According to Danish researchers, control should be undertaken immediately if daily mite fall is greater than 8 mites/day. For 2 mites/day, control should be undertaken within 2 months, and for 1 mite/day, control should be within 3 months or at least before winter [http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests-diseases/animals/varroa/guidelines/control.htm  p36, Accessed 8/1/05].

4) Central European regions, treatments are recommended as follows:
* End of May - More than 3 mites on stick-board
* End of July - More than 10
* Beginning of September - More than 1
* Whole Bee Season - More than 30, control measures must be initiated, irrespective of time [Swiss Bee Research Center, 2003].

5) Treat when natural drop exceeds [http://www.irishbeekeeping.ie/v2.htm].
*Jan to Mar - 1 mite
*Apr to May - 6 mites
*Jun to Aug - 14 mites
*Sep to Dec - 7 mites

6) Keep levels below 8-10 natural drop [MiteGone Brochure-Jan 01, 2004]

7) In July - August (w/ large bee population), 60 mites / 24 hrs warrants treatment, fewer than 20 per day and youll make it to spring without treatment [BC, 8/04, p49].

8) - 15 to 20 natural mite fall in 24 hrs, is the trigger to suggest treatment [ABJ, 1/05, p26].

9) - 20 fallen Varroa, acaricide treatment should be used to save colony [ABJ, Oct 03, p799].

10) - 50 mites (overnight fall) indicates time to treat [Ref 15, p142].

11) - 50-mite threshold (24-hr drop) recommended by Kathleen Prough, Indiana State Apiarist (by phone 2/18/05 [DLW]).

12) - 59 to 187 in SE Piedmont region  [http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/Disorders/Varroa_mites.htm - Accessed 6/25/04].

13) - 60 or more mites, on sticky board within 24-hr period, treatment required [Ref 7, p2].

14) - 60 - 190 mites (unassisted 24-hr drop) [BC, 1/03, p41]. (60 / 3172 = 1.9%, 190 / 4261 = 4.4% [DLW])
15) - 100+ treat ASAP. [Ref 6, p38, http://nanaimo.ark.com/~varipm.htm].


THRESHOLD using MITES per BEE

1) First, determine number of bees in colony. A deep frame completely covered both sides w/ bees, will have about 3,000 bees on it. Insert fresh sticky-board under screen, after 3 days count fallen mites. Divide that quantity by 3 for average mites / 24 hrs. Then divide average mites / 24 hrs by number of bees in hive to get mites / adult bee. Drs. Delaplane and Hood suggest when mites per adult bee is more than 0.4, (WRONG, may be 0.004 - DLW) colony should be treated [BC, 7/04, p50].

2) In Georgia, colony w/ 25,000 to 34,000 bees need to be treated when mite population reaches 3,172 to 4,261 mites (approx 12.5% of bee population-DLW). [Delaplane & Hood, 1999 and BC 5/04,p25 and http://nanaimo.ark.com/~varipm.htm, http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/Disorders/Varroa_mites.htm - Accessed 6/25/04].

3) - 1% infestation level in spring, up to 5% in fall, treatment should begin ASAP [BC Nov 02, p33].


THRESHOLD base on TOTAL MITE POPULATION

1) Estimating Total Mites - We have no earthly idea how many Varroa mites are in a colony, no one knows. All of the literature is extrapolations and guesses [ABJ, 4/05, p307].
* Maximum theoretical mite population (predicted by Martin, 1997) is 81,000 for A. mellifera and 900 for A. cerana. 10000 mites are sufficient to cause an A. mellifera colony to collapse [http://www.culturaapicola.com.ar/apuntes/sanidad/ecol20%monogr.pdf  p10, Accessed 11/9/05].

2) According to British researchers, the daily natural mite fall in winter can be multiplied by 400 to get the total number of mites in the hive. In summer, the multiplication factor is 30. In early spring when brood is expanding rapidly, and in autumn when brood is decreasing, they say mite fall is unreliable but estimate a multiplication factor of 100. All factors include mites on brood [http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests-diseases/animals/varroa/guidelines/control.htm  p90, Accessed 8/1/05].

3) Using Natural Fall mite counts [http://apis.ifas.ufl.edu/apis99/apmar99.htm and Ref 16, p236]
* Nov through Feb: Daily mite fall X 400 = Total Mite Population.
* Mar through Apr: Daily mite fall x 100 = Total Mite Population. (This number is more of an approx because of large bee population shifts during spring and fall.)
* May through Aug: Daily mite fall X 30 = Total Mite Population. (July 7, 2004 drop = 108. Apistan killed 15,341 (44 days) = Factor of 142 [DLW])
* Sep through Oct: Daily mite fall X 100 = Total Mite Population. (This number is more of an approx because of large bee population shifts during spring and fall.)

4) There is a linear connection between the average number of mites that fall onto insert board per day, in the course of a week, and the amount of varroa mites in a colony w/ brood (minimum half frame of sealed brood) [http://www.biavl.dk/english/varroa-english/outline.htm - Accessed 5/9/05].
Total number of mites in a colony = 120 X average number of mites per day [http://www.biavl.dk/english/varroa-english/outline.htm - Accessed 5/9/05].

5) One mite per day, natural fall, equates to 120 - 130 mites in colony [BC, 1/03, p43].

6)	One fallen mite during 24 hr period means there are 500 alive within colony [BC Nov 02, p33].
7)	To calculate total number of mites use: X=Y-5.75/0.0019 (X=Total, Y=24 h natural fall) [ABJ, 10/03, p799].


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> Here are just a few NATURAL FALL THRESHOLDS


Holy Smokes Dave.. You've been busy! BTW, I misunderstood your original question about thresholds- I thought you were asking about ways to figure total mite population from drop counts... not "when to treat" figures.

The threshold figures are all over the freakin map. I knew that already







And Thanks, but I don't need any more!

The methods for figuring total population from drop counts seem for the most part to agree with those from Stephen Martin's paper. One thing I find interesting is the trend of using a multiplier of around 100 or so for brief periods in the spring an fall when brood is starting/stopping and the bee population is in flux. I suspected such an interim factor might be necessary to explain what I've been seeing. I've been "avoiding" those periods for the most part.

I'll give this stuff more review. Thanks for posting it!

George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> just kill em at the end of the production period/honey flow.


But, I *like* my bees.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Dave- do you have any comments on my analysis of your Apistan treatment? Am I right on? Not even close? Should I have my head examined? Should I take up knitting?

George-


----------



## Jackbee (Aug 26, 2005)

Where would you get bees for a start up in the spring if everyone killed off the bees at the end of the productive honey period?

Well the answer lies between this post and my above post.

THERE WILL BE some who will not do this killin as can be noted. Also there are/will be queen breeders and package producers who will no doubt continue to provide those starter set-ups as a business, as they do now. Queens and packages are their business and they take care of their mite problems that way mostly, I think. I will discuss this idea more come Friday and Saturday 2-3 Dec at the www.labeekeepers,org meeting in Lafayette,LA. Mais cher. ya'll can come too! 

My above post, if you read it correctly, says that what I read concerns a Canadian honey producer. If ya'll would go to some web sites belonging to some Canadian beekeepers, www.frenchbeefarm.com is one, and visit you will see for yourself all the efforts that those guys/gals have to put out to overwinter their hives then you would have to conclude that the task is daunting. Making the idea of produce honey/co2 the bees after, something to consider, IF honey production is what you want.IF, you want to fool around with bees than that's something else.

Don't we have cattle and hog feed lot's? What's the difference? Bigg, bigg, business for the midwestern part of the country hey?. I SMELLED it!!!

Ya'll have a nice day/nite.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

woa yes davew has been a very busy boy although it appears to me that much of the information is somewhat confusing and or confused..

I should only have to point to #5 and #6 (threshold-total mite population) which definitely just makes tecumseh head spin around like a top....

anyway lots of information just in that one davew post... thanks davew

but the #4 (just above #5 and#6) is most curious (and I would have to say simplistic). one only has to reflect on a sigmoid growth curve (this is your typical population curve in bioliogy and a standard production curve in economics) and understand that you have periods when the totals are increasing (and decreasing) at very different rates (rate of change is often abbreviated by the use of delta) depending on what point you are on the curve. so the relationship between vorroa total population and mite fall may be linear connected but it is defititely not constant in any way shape or form.

now if that don't confuse you folks, nothin' will...


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

woa yes davew has been a very busy boy although it appears to me that much of the information is somewhat confusing and or confused..

I should only have to point to #5 and #6 (threshold-total mite population) which definitely just makes tecumseh head spin around like a top....

anyway lots of information just in that one davew post... thanks davew

but the #4 (just above #5 and#6) is most curious (and I would have to say simplistic). one only has to reflect on a sigmoid growth curve (this is your typical population curve in bioliogy and a standard production curve in economics) and understand that you have periods when the totals are increasing (and decreasing) at very different rates (rate of change is often abbreviated by the use of delta) depending on what point you are on the curve. so the relationship between vorroa total population and mite fall may be linear connected but it is defititely not constant in any way shape or form.

now if that don't confuse you folks, nothin' will...


----------



## Jerry Simmons (Nov 19, 2005)

Jackbee 

"For control of all that may be detrimental to bees--just kill em at the end of the production period/honey flow."


But this statement doesn't allow for ANYONE to keep their bees. 

Just messin' with ya.

[ December 01, 2005, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Jerry Simmons ]


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>"when to treat" figures.
I thought they WERE thresholds.

>The methods for figuring total population from drop counts seem for the most part to agree with those from Stephen Martin's paper.
The only agreement I see is "there ALL wrong". Please show me my error in thinking.

>davew has been a very busy boy . . .
I like that! Makes feel 40-50 years younger








>Dave- do you have any comments on my analysis of your Apistan treatment?
Yes, and promise to keep them to myself







(I mostly agree, dont understand parts)


George . . .

Here is how I see my mites numbers. I am starting at the very beginning and will add some comments based on information (hive notes) that you havent been made aware off. My comments are based on quarterly bar-chart graphs made using all 365 days, inserting drop numbers where appropriate (blank days help make trends more obvious). I recommend making the charts. They show a lot thats hard to describe. Ill bet my simple ways of looking and describing things will give many a good hoot-n-holler. Please dont be too critical. 

4/12/03 - Installed 3-lb. package.
4/23  No Varroa mites on sticky board.
5/3  No V-mites found.
5/15  No mites.
5/21  Examined a few drone cells, no mites.
6/1  No mites on sticky board
6/9  Found first mite.
6/25  5 mites
7/2  Sugar-shake, no mites
7/23  14 mites
8/7  21 mites. Look at chart and connect a line from first mite on 6/9 to 7/23. Notice this curve (trend) and the percent of increase in these 59 days (Ill show you another one later). Im going to say that my package was mite-free and remained so until invaded by about 1 or 2 mites. Based upon the magnitude of the increase, a very few mites probably have been reproducing in drone, not worker cells (more about this later). Maybe a math guru can help validate (mites reproduce at about 2.6 in drone cells). 
8/18  First Apistan treatment. When I saw the rate of increase indicated, I felt something had to be done. I didnt know then what I know now







it proved to be a lucky guess!
10/5  Removed Apistan. No record of mite fall. We all make mistakes!








10/20  11 mites. Treatment reduced mite drop by 47.6% (21 11 = 10 / 21). Now, at this point in time, I realize this was not a very effective treatment. 
11-22  16 mites. Warm weather, mites are immigrating.
11/30  3.25 mites. Weather turns cold. Probably have about some number of mites in the hive but they just are not dropping. Sticky board remains in place till 1/2/04.

1/2/04  Found 170 mites / 34 days = 5 per 24 hrs. Approx 10 alive. This is a large percentage of live mites. When I count mites, I strike over or draw a circle around each mite. Some time later, I go back and see if any have moved. Usually only about 1 or 2% are alive when I fold the contact paper together. 
2/6  1.2 (41/35 days)
2/6 through 3/1  No mites found.
3/11  8.3
4/2  4.6
4/1  1
4/9  Inspected 15 larvae in burr comb, no mites.
4/9  Sugar-shake, no mites.
4/15  6.25
4/18  22.7
4/21  32.7
5/9  10.5
5/12  14 (3 out of 42 alive, 21.4%)
5/27  53 (approx 50% light in color) Applied ring of Vaseline around sticky board, no mites found in Vaseline. Guess none were crawling across sticky board to climb back into hive.
6/15  94 One mite, pure white. (Freshly hatched, very immature)
6/20  Dusted w/ sugar.
7/7  108 Time to call your attention to another trend. Mite drops of Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb and Mar show no growth in mite population. Fluctuation was due to weather changes, when its cold few drops, but the very next day if weather improves just a few degrees, drop can jump. Check the trend from 5/9 to 7/7. This trend is about the same as the one noted on 8/7/03. Whats the rate of increase? The percent tell me that reproduction was going on in workers cells not drone (workers reproduction rate is about 1.3).
7/12  Applied Apistan. Used 6 strips in 3 deeps w/ an estimated 72,000 bees (30 frames 80% covered w/ bees. I believe bee population is very critical. A bigger, stronger hive can withstand a greater mite population, which is often alluded to by a mite-to-bee ratio. To estimate bees, sometimes I pull out each frame and visually estimate coverage, 20%, 50%, 90%, etc. A deep frame completely covered top-to-bottom; bar-to-bar both sides will contain about 3000 bees. Now w/ some experience, I can pry up and tilt back the super and make a guess







. While doing inspections, I record comments in a mini-cassette recorder in by bee-suit chest pocket. Later I translate into my hive record. I like records, notes, etc., they help my memory and referring to them again and again, I often see things I missed first time around.

The Apistan killed 1,444 mites in first 24 hrs. I believe about 879 were mites coming from cells during that 24-hr period and remainder (about 565) was not in cells (phoretic). Heres why, for the next 12 days drop numbers undulate from 814 to 984 to 769 to 971 to 726 to 1033, an average of 878.9 per day. After the first-day kill of ALL phoretic mites (565), the only mites remaining were in capped cells. These mites exited the cells over next 12 days w/ hatching, primarily WORKER (and some drone) bees and were killed by the presence of fluvalinate. This is demonstrated by the one-time dramatic reduction in mite fall seen from day 1 of 1,444 to the 879 average thereafter.

On 14th day of treatment another sizable (about 50%) reduction occurred as mites continued to exit only from DRONE cells (all infested worker cells had been emptied). Once all infested worker cells had hatched, mite drop was reduced to mites coming from hatching drones. This continued to about the 16th day. Next 5 days saw a more modest reduction from 124 down to an average of 69 that continued for at least 41 days (8/2 to at least 9/12). This almost straight line, steady daily drop lasted at least 19 days AFTER the removal of the Apistan strips. Was this 19 days of extra treatment caused by chemical residual. I dont know. Maybe the almost constant drop of 69 was from remaining resistant bees? I dont know. If so, why was it so constant? I think its safe to say, no mite reproduction was taking place during this time frame. Now, at this place in time, I have the bias POV that it was NOT resistant mites, and could change my mind later







. Could we have a great exchange in phoretic mites? Could some workers be carrying mites out of the hive while other are bring in new ones? Maybe 69 new mites per day were being brought into the hive and Apistan killed them. If so, thats a lot of new mites arriving every day! No wonder a hive can suddenly be overwhelmed and collapse. I think all the facts and what ifs show a very effective Apistan treatment. Maybe killing 100%. Maybe ONE mite out of thousands was still alive . . . Ill call her resistant. Re-infestation plays a key role in how effective a treatment is often judged. 
9/12  32 mites. Is residual contamination wearing off? Are 69 mites still arriving but now only 32 are dying? If so, is other 37 reproducing? Maybe. 
9/26  110 mites. Mite drop skyrockets. What happened? Were resistant mites breeding? Could it just be a great influx of immigrant mites? Now is the time of year to expect lots of robbing. Maybe bees are bringing back lots of hitchhikers. Heres another bias POV, most were immigrating mites.
10/1  Oxalic Acid Vapor treatment. It took 3 days to see an increase in drop numbers. Effectiveness can be seen as daily drops jump from 83 on 9/30 (pre-treatment) to 136 on 10/4 and hold almost steady (107 to 140) till about 10/12 (one more application on 10/9) when kill ceases. Note that drops continue to decline to 20 on 10/16. I see an increase while OA is killing mites, of 64%. Not bad, or is it? Apistans increase was 1,237% the first day, 714% average over next 12 days. What are the total effects of OA vapor? I found a new unmarked queen on 3/25/05. Was there a connection? I dont know.
10/16  20 mites.
11/5  101 mites. These were immigrating mites.
12/18/04  Last white mite found. Brood rearing stops about 12 days prior or could have continued without mites breeding.

2/4/05  17 mites. 9 white mites. Mite breeding has begun! May have had bee brood all winter, dont know. Probably not.
2/11  12, 4 white
2/18  12, 0 white
2/24  11, 2 white
3/4  25, 5 white. Immature (light colored, especially white) mites fall from cell as bee emerges. Heres where mite breeding begins to show up.
3/4  Sucrocide treatment. 
3/7  65 mites. Did Sucrocide increase the drop or was mite drop already growing as indicated by 11 increasing to 25 then to 65. My bias POV, yes mite numbers continue to grow.
3/10  27 mites.
3/14  30 mites.
3/19  44 mites.
3/21  48 mites. I see steady growth in mites numbers (11 to 48), a 336% increase in 25 days. Thats a very bad signal. A warning, Id say.
3/21  Sucrocide treatment.
3/25  Sucrocide treatment.
3/29  Sucrocide treatment.
4/3  47 mites.
4/5  Sucrocide treatment.
4/8  39 mites.
4/17  12 mites. Now, after 4 suckercide treatments, I dont see a big kill (increase), but does drop decrease 75%? (48 to 12)
4/22  24 mites. Mites begin steady reproduction. Drop will increase 883% over next 74 days. This reproduction increase was unaffected by Sucrocide treatments on 7/30, 8/12, 9/5, 9/14 and 9/23. Mite drop peaks at 235 mites per 24 hrs on 9/30 and was the terminal turning point.
11/25  7 mites. Very small cluster is still alive.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

tecumseh . . .

>now if that don't confuse you folks, nothin' will...
If you have a question about any of this, please feel free to ask. I'll do my best to help.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Maybe 69 new mites per day were being brought into the hive and Apistan killed them. If so, thats a lot of new mites arriving every day! No wonder a hive can suddenly be overwhelmed and collapse. 

I think this is underestimated as part of the cause of the exposion in the mite population in the fall, in addition, of course, to emerging brood and no mites hiding in the capped brood anymore.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> ..just kill em at the end of the production period/honey flow.





> Start fresh next season with new bees.





> ...the idea has merit.


Well, Jackbee Im going to put a pin in your balloon. You have come up with nothing new. Killing bees at seasons end, to my understanding, was the practice of some (many?) Canadian beekeepers prior to arrival of mites and the closing of the border with the U.S. After the border closing new packages werent so easily and cheaply obtained, so, again to my understanding, they were pushed into keeping their bees year round. Im sure the Canadians have better information than I do.

A few years back midwest beekeeper Carl Wenning wrote an article for Amercian Bee Journal on that method. He used the euphemism hive depopulation. Subsequent letters to the editor about the article were somewhat less than glowing in their remarks. 

The practice here in Alaska of killing bees after robbing honey is actually the norm for the majority of people here who have bees. Typically, the average beekeeper in this area is a backyard gardener with one or two hives. Bees are killed each fall and new packages are purchased the next spring. 

We dont all do that here. Some of us do overwinter, or at least attempt to overwinter our bees.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Michael Bush . . .

Of all the many, many things discussed here, the one most important may be the advice I hear you often give, "monitor, monitor, monitor".

Thank you.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>>"when to treat" figures.
>I thought they WERE thresholds.

When to treat figures ARE thresholds. I wasn't talking thresholds. You were talking thresholds. I don't really care about thresholds though I know a lot of people are interested in thresholds, and THOSE are all over the map.

>The only agreement I see is "there ALL wrong". Please show me my error in thinking.

Well, the first set of numbers I saw agreed with Stephen Martin's paper, now I notice it IS Stephen Martin's paper







Under the section "THRESHOLD base on “TOTAL MITE POPULATION":

Item #2 is 30/400 which is almost 20-40/250-500. I'd say that's close.

Item #3 is similar to #2 (30/400) but throws in a factor of 100 for certain periods in spring, and fall- an effect I assume of the change in population growth rate referred to by Tecumseh, above. I'd say that's close.

Item's #4, #5, and #6 are just too simplistic IMHO to be useful.

Item #7... appears to be just wrong. I dunno. Transcription error? I can't get realistic numbers out of it.

>>Dave- do you have any comments on my analysis of your Apistan treatment?
>Yes, and promise to keep them to myself (I mostly agree, dont understand parts)

Oh come on Dave, let me have it, I can take it! And what don't you understand?

George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Dave, I've read your mite drop analysis and find it facinating. I'm going to read it a few more times to make sure I follow your train of thought.

One thing is obvious, you attribute a fair number of mites in your hive due to immigration- in fact, you believe you had no mites to begin with, and picked a few up from "away".

I'm not going to agree, or disagree with you at this time. Clearly, immigration can be an issue and clearly, mites have to infect "clean" hives *somehow* so immigration DOES happen. I just don't know enough about it to have a handle on it. I neglected immigration in my analysis of your figures- amd I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I believe your mite counts can be explained without immigration.

Anyways, good work. Back to reading!

George-


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

questions to dave w...
could you give me an idea when the bees in your area begin brooding up in the spring, an additional time when the first full flow begins and a fall date when brood rearing stops. nothing exact is necessary just some approximate date to assist my mental modeling of your particular situation.

in addition do you keep your bees in a area with any quantity of commercial beekeepers? and if yes, do you notice if these beekeepers pot feed their bees?

and I see you had a note about discovering a new and unmarked queen. some folks seem to think that a new queen is a positive response to mite infestation. I seem to experience a number of hives (mostly start up hives) going thru two repetitions of queen replacement (which pretty much totally breaks the brood cycle) before a new queen sticks.

I had hoped that bjornbee would return and present his eleven (or at least I think it was eleven) point plan on combating the mites. rarely would tecumseh and bjorn bee's thinking fall into the same regiment, but this might be the one exception. now where did I misplace my prozac?


----------



## Jackbee (Aug 26, 2005)

Letters for Dick Allen

I'm new to bee keeping and since there is nothing much new to bee keeping, except new people coming on the scene, I was actually looking for comments if this annual killin was in fact what some honey harvesters did. Dick Allen you have provided the answer which proves that you are a smart guy DicK Allen .And you be knowin yo stuff, man.

I also wrote to a Canadian guy I correspond with and he did in fact fill me in on the practice, as you did. He also did mention that since the border is closed from the US to canada the practice is pretty much stopped. He also concurred that killin after the honey harvest was in fact economical from the point of view of strictly honey production. Unskilled " cheap " labor being the main advantage. Allowed for lotsa time for fishing and hunting after the honey by the practitioner also.

Anyway, back to countin mighty mites, ho hum.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

George . . .

>When to treat figures ARE thresholds. I wasn't talking thresholds. You were talking thresholds. I don't really care about thresholds though I know a lot of people are interested in thresholds, and THOSE are all over the map.
I thought you and I was on the same "track", I knew we were in different "trains". We seem to care about different things; you want to know how many mites are in the hive, I really dont care how many, I just want to know when to treat. That all that really matters. 

>Oh come on Dave, let me have it, I can take it!
Ill answer this w/ your words, "I'm not going to agree, or disagree with you at this time". Whats the point, we both have made up our minds.

>One thing is obvious, you attribute a fair number of mites in your hive due to immigration . . .
Yes. They come and go. Some even die while in my hive









>I believe your mite counts can be explained without immigration.
Are you saying immigration has no effect on the quantity of dead mites found in hive? It things like this I dont understand. Some how this does not make sence.

tecumseh . . .

>begin brooding up . . . first full flow begins . . . brood rearing stops . . . nothing exact 
Begins in Jan/Feb
Fruit bloom about mid Apr
Rearing stops in Nov/Dec
Nothing exact - You got it









>commercial beekeepers
I see "honey for sale" by a commercial guy in next county. May have other hobby guys nearby, dont know. My hive is im the "middle" of houses for a far as the eye can see. 

>new queen is a positive response to mite infestation. 
I know







. (which pretty much totally breaks the brood cycle).
Where in my numbers does this "positive response" show up. Do you see a time (from the numbers) that indicates "queen replacement"?

>I had hoped that bjornbee would return and present his eleven (or at least I think it was eleven) point plan on combating the mites. 
Thats not what I understood (11 points about mites).

>prozac?
NO! NO! NO! Do NOT use in your hive! No chemicals, remember?
















[ December 02, 2005, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Dave W ]


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

For the record, let me state that I do not believe the following to be accurate:
Mite population can be estimated throughout the year by multiplying the daily drop by 250 to 500 when brood is absent, or by 20 to 40 when brood is present.

Here is why:
On July 22, 2005 I counted 551 dead mites that had accumulated on sticky board during the past seven days. 551 divided by 7 equals 78.7 mites per 24-hr period. 78.7 multiplied by the above factor of 40 (brood was present) equals 3,148 (estimated mite population). I disagree, I believe (no proof yet) that summer mite population (phoretic and in cells) is much, much higher.

On Nov 25, 2005 I counted 48 dead mites in 7 days. That equates to 6.9 mites per day (48/7). 6.9 multiplied by the above factor of 500 (brood absent) equals 3450. Using the above formula (250-500 / 20-40) says I have MORE MITES IN WINTER THAN IN SUMMER (3450 vs. 3148). I KNOW this WRONG!

Another example:
On July 15 mite count was 236 / 7 = 33.7. Subtracting 236 from 551 you get a difference of 315. This is 315 FEWER mites, an exact number, no estimate. We know that hives total mite population was reduced by 315 from 7/15 to 7/22 (Disregarding immigration and reproduction).
Multiplying the 33.7 times 40, you get 1,348. Subtract 1,348 from 3,148 you get 1,800 fewer mites. 
An estimate of 1,800 and an actual of 31, which one is right? 

Compare numbers of 12/2 to 11/25 and see a similar "hard to explain" result.
Dec 2  36 / 7 = 5.1 x 500 = 2,550.
Nov 25  48 / 7 = 6.8 x 500 = 3450.
3450 2,550 = 900
48 36 = 12
900 vs. 12???


We MAY need a way of calculating total mite populations (that works). But, it seem more important to me that we know "how many it takes to cause harm".

[ December 02, 2005, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Dave W ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> I thought you and I was on the same "track", I knew we were in different "trains". We seem to care about different things; you want to know how many mites are in the hive, I really dont care how many, I just want to know when to treat. That all that really matters.


Saying I'm more interested in how many mites is in a hive is not really accurate. I've been concentrating on understanding mite population dynamics and knowing what I know now and given how fast mite populations can grow, I've come to the opinion that there is NO "safe" level of mite infestation. Period. Who needs thresholds! You got any mites at all? You got a problem! If you do nothing, it will rapidly become a big problem! 100 mites can become 5000 over the course of the season. If you do nothing, your hive will likely be dead before the end of the next year. What good are thresholds except to lull you into a false sense of security?



> >Oh come on Dave, let me have it, I can take it!
> Ill answer this w/ your words, "I'm not going to agree, or disagree with you at this time". Whats the point, we both have made up our minds.


I said that because I have NOT made up my mind







Wasn't my treatment, ain't my bees. I enjoyed the exercise, in any case so thanks for the opportunity











> Are you saying immigration has no effect on the quantity of dead mites found in hive? It things like this I dont understand. Some how this does not make sence.


I'm not saying that. I'm saying your numbers can be explained to MY satisfaction without immigration, not that there isn't any. Obviously, if there are mites coming into the hive, then they're going to contribute to the population, and the drop.

I just don't know much about mite immigration. I know it happens. I don't understand it. I do know that immigration is not necessary for mites to develop the numbers necessary to kill off hives. If there is immigration, it would only exacerbate the problem, not cause it.



> Do you see a time (from the numbers) that indicates "queen replacement"?


I don't. Maybe early May 2004 when there was a drop in counts when there should have been continued increase.

George-


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

dave w sezs (middle of page 5):
>new queen is a positive response to mite infestation. I know . (which pretty much totally breaks the brood cycle). Where in my numbers does this "positive response" show up. Do you see a time (from the numbers) that indicates "queen replacement"?

dave w sezs (bottom of page 4):
10/1  Oxalic Acid Vapor treatment. It took 3 days to see an increase in drop numbers. Effectiveness can be seen as daily drops jump from 83 on 9/30 (pre-treatment) to 136 on 10/4 and hold almost steady (107 to 140) till about 10/12 (one more application on 10/9) when kill ceases. Note that drops continue to decline to 20 on 10/16. I see an increase while OA is killing mites, of 64%. Not bad, or is it? Apistans increase was 1,237% the first day, 714% average over next 12 days. What are the total effects of OA vapor? I found a new unmarked queen on 3/25/05. Was there a connection? I dont know.

tecumseh sezs:
so from your own notes provided from the previous page you suggest that 'this' hive reproduced a queen sometime between 1 oct and 25 mar? And this occurred in Indiana in the middle of a snow storm? If this is in fact plausible (and there are other explanations) then you definitely need to be exploiting this rare geographical site for winter queen production.

tecumseh's final comment before going to sell some honey:

unlike george I do believe that there is some threshold where mites (relative to the bees overall health and performance) go from being a nuisance to a threat. if you were to graph this out in classical economic term I would point to the place on the graph where the population (of mites and not widgets) goes from increasing at an increasing rate to increasing at a decreasing rate, this is called the inflection point of the graph. theory and experience would suggest that mite growth beyond this inflection point is a signal for action by the beekeeper.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> I would point to the place on the graph where the population (of mites and not widgets) goes from increasing at an increasing rate to increasing at a decreasing rate


A glance at a curve representing mite population growth (and common sense) shows that the time to hit `em is when their rate of growth is increasing at an increasing rate, not leveling off (increasing at a decreasing rate), which I assume is what you meant.

This condition (increasing at an increasing rate) invariably occurs in the spring when the bees are brooding up. When the bee population is exploding, so then is the mite population beginning to explode. In the fall when the bee population if leveling off, so too is the mite population leveling off. By this time, the mites have already done their damage and your hive is heading for winter with a diminished population of weakened bees.

I gather from what you say that your "threshold" for treatment is based on the change in the rate of growth, not some finite number of mites turning up in your hive or on your bottom board.

We're not so far apart in our concept of threshold as you think!

George-


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

george ferguson adds:
A glance at a curve representing mite population growth (and common sense) 

tecumseh replies:
and who gets to define common sense? certainly not me cause if I had any of that (which to my way of thinking really cannot be so common) I most likely would not be calling myself a beekeeper. in a moment of mental weakness I catch myself, on many occasions, tagging someone with 'crazy'. you think that 'crazy' person don't think I am crazy while I attending my girls? enough said...

but as to your assumption about what I tried so very hard to say plainly. no I meant the point at which the function goes from increasing at an increasing rate to increasing at a decreasing rate (the inflection point). the function is increasing at an increasing rate throughout the lower portion of the function. so it gives you no signal to act. this might provide a clue as to the flaw in davew's methodology. that is to say this strategy invariable leads to overtreatment.

and as to your final comment, I would suspect you are quite correct.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> tecumseh replies: and who gets to define common sense?


Well *I* do, at least my version of it







That's my perogative and I'm actually quite happy with my ability to look at evidence and draw conclusions based on what I see. Ain't always right but more often than not I'm not too far off the mark. Most people do this whether they realize it or not!

In this particular case, I really want to understand what you're saying and I guess I need more explanation. Sorry, and thanks for humoring me











> but as to your assumption about what I tried so very hard to say plainly. no


OK. That's why I try to confirm my assumptions before ah... assuming they're correct









It's hard talking about functions and rates of growth and changes and the resulting curves without actually having them in front of us. You mentioned previously that mite population growth follows a more or less standard sigmoid growth curve, and I agree. Whereabouts on such a curve does the value of the function change from increasing at an increasing rate and start increasing at a decreasing rate? Common sense (sorry!) suggests that it's increasing at an increasing rate near the bottom where the curve is becoming increasingly steeper, that it remains more or less straight-line (increasing at a constant rate) in the middle, and that it starts increasing at a decreasing rate near the top when the curve is beginning to level off- still going up, but not as quickly. This defines a more or less typical sigmoid curve, characteristic of a growing varroa population:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> . . .
.
.B
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
A</pre>[/QUOTE]So much for ascii art. A is where rate of change starts to increase at an increasing rate, corresponding roughly to early spring; B is where starts increasing at a decreasing rate, long about late summer. And you're saying your preferred time for treatment would be around B?

Is this correct, or am I misunderstanding what you're saying totally?

George-


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I would argue that "B" is the depopulation point for this hive, and that the other healthy hives (all of them) at point "B" are the ones in need of treatment (but I interpreted the above statements the same way you did).


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>immigration can be an issue and clearly, mites have to infect "clean" hives *somehow* so immigration DOES happen. I just don't know enough about it to have a handle on it. 

Our provincal aparists discussed in one of last years bee meetings.

It all has to do with robbing. Hives infected with the mites tend to defend themselves poorly. This creates the oportunity for robbing by the strong healthy hives within the beeyard, or other surrounding yards. The transfer of mites is then unavoidable, and huge transfers of mites can be relocated into stronge hives within weeks. Bigger hives, have lots of brood and the population esculates beyond the hives control.
This is why you will see stronge hives in your bee yard drop off quicker than the infected smaller ones due to the phantom mite. Also remember, brood viruses transfered by the mite have alot to do with the problem also...

It posses an even larger concern with AFB. Just you loose the equipment along with the bees.

[ December 04, 2005, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Ian ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

What do you mean by "depopulation point" Aspera?

Personally, I think point B (which is typically around the end of August, depending on where you are) is way too late to start worrying about mites. You should have been dealing with them sooner. By that time, your bee population has peaked, brood rearing is dropping off and you're heading into winter. You've got more mites in your hive than ever and multiple mites entering worker cells to breed. Your hatching bees which will take you through winter are being weakened, and you're likely to start seeing symptoms of PMS. As Ian points out, the liklihood of picking up immigrant mites is high this time of year too.

IMHO, the time to tackle your mites is in the spring (point A) when you can really make a serious dent in their population.

George-


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

If a hive has that many mites, I will cage the queen for until there is no more brood. Then I take all of the honey comb for crush and strain. The remaining bees get combined with another colony if they still look exceptionally strong. Otherwise, I shake them out. It works better for me to overwinter fewer colonies, and then split in the springtime. I haven't had good luck overwintering heavily infested colonies anyhow (I think that I just read that 70% of all PA colonies disappeared when varroa came to town.) With this system I lose very fewer colonies over winter. Besides, I'm trying to get cleaner comb, so I really don't mind replacing foundation. Likewise, I feel that if you use a treatment of any kind, if makes sense to treat the whole apiary, rather than favor the sickest colonies and risk the healthy ones.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

P.S. If I had to pick a time to treat for varroa, then it would be in the Fall, when there is minimal brood present. So far my Suckercide bottle is unopened, but this coming year will be the real test to see if it stays that way.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

thanks for the patience and sense of humor on your end of the line also george..

and thanks for the graft..

the lower part of the graft which has an A below it and looks like the edge of a bowl turn upward, and B which looks like a bowl turned downward have both been properly identified by you as to their rate of change. so the inflection point would be a point between the two (my guess is about 3 to 4 dots below point B) where the rate of change (second derivative of the function-ie we are not talking just change but rate of change) is zero.

unless intervention is absolutely free (time and materials) the range I have described as a downward pointing bowl (and you as B) that lies above the inflection point is the logical place to act. part of this logic would be that the organism (mites) would have begun to encounter it's own constraints.

anyway... it is good to remember that in logical deconstruction in term of rate of change the important concept to keep in mind is that you are adding this period increase (change) to the previous time period's base. intervention simply knocks the entire sum back down to zero (at least hypothetically) where the little buggers are forced to begin all over again.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

like Ian I do believe that robbing is the prime mechanism for infection... it is why I inquired with davew about the possibilities of pot feeding at his location.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Boy! This is good stuff. Now we are learning.
Please, keep trying to convince me Im wrong









[ December 05, 2005, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Dave W ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> thanks for the patience and sense of humor on your end of the line also george..


When correctly viewed, just about anything can be funny. As for patience, I just want to understand and if that takes time, well I got time. Thank your for YOUR patience.



> so the inflection point would be a point between the two (my guess is about 3 to 4 dots below point B)


Excellent Tecumseh. I understand! As I suspected, we're pretty much on the same "threshold" wavelength. I'll go a step further and say I think any time from point A up to your inflection point is a good time to thrash them. Just guestimating, this would be about a 2 month period running from early spring through early summer- around here, roughly May through June. Breaking the mite's brood cycle during this period would be very useful either through cut down splits, requeening, or caging the queen possibly with some drone comb removal and maybe a few soft treatments thrown in. I think you could really set the buggers back.

And Dave chimes in:



> Boy! This is good stuff. Now we are learning.
> Please, keep trying to convince me Im wrong


Geez, is that what we were doing? And we haven't succeeded yet? Hehe... and yes, this IS good stuff. Heck of a thread you started. But we're not done yet... we still have to beat mite immigration to death. Hehehe... something to look forward to









George-


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

george ferguson adds:
I'll go a step further and say I think any time from point A up to your inflection point is a good time to thrash them. Just guestimating, this would be about a 2 month period running from early spring through early summer- around here, roughly May through June. Breaking the mite's brood cycle during this period would be very useful either through cut down splits, requeening, or caging the queen possibly with some drone comb removal and maybe a few soft treatments thrown in. I think you could really set the buggers back.

tecumseh replies:
yep i think we are reading from the same page, although the timing here would likely be a bit earlier (and somewhat effected by a beekeepers spring feeding regime). 

my current plans here is to use sucrocide primaily as a tool in making spring splits (i began this program late in the summer with some success) and for spot control of affected hives (I also scratch a lot of drone cells in the process).


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> tecumseh replies:
> yep i think we are reading from the same page, although the timing here would likely be a bit earlier (and somewhat effected by a beekeepers spring feeding regime).


Yes, Texas weather is considerably milder from what I hear than what we get here in Maine. From what I can tell, spring buildup gets going here in earnest in mid-March and by April it's well underway, but we frequently get freezing temperatures and late season snowstorms in April or at least, cold rains. The maple bloom starts in early April and the ice usually doesn't leave the lake until early April too. April is often a lot like winter. Spring feeding is often required to maintain the brood rearing that started earlier. Last spring, it rained 27 days in May, extending our "mud season" considerably. I gather from what I've heard it was a hard spring on the bees. I got mine in mid-May.

George-


----------



## Rod350 (Feb 5, 2003)

I have a gallon of Sucrocide mixed that I will not use this season. Can anyone tell me if it will keep for 6 months after it is mixed with water.
Thanks,


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Rod350 . . .

Sucrocide begins to break down once mixed w/ water. I would toss it.


----------

