# Bayer rescue or Public Relations Exercise



## TomOB (Jun 1, 2003)

http://www.bayercropscience.com/bcsweb/cropprotection.nsf/id/EN_20101116?open&l=EN&ccm=500020

Is Bayer setting us up for a crock of ... or on the cusp of something great regards controlling Varoa? To me, the interesting aspect of this scene is the price Bayer expects us to pay for their product to remedy a situation that is no doubt, in my mind, part of their doing. I have no mercy on these guys and I suggest others hammer them mercilessly.

t


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

Bayer invented the varroa mite?


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries (Jun 23, 2009)

TomOB said:


> http://www.bayercropscience.com/bcsweb/cropprotection.nsf/id/EN_20101116?open&l=EN&ccm=500020
> 
> To me, the interesting aspect of this scene is the price Bayer expects us to pay for their product to remedy a situation that is no doubt, in my mind, part of their doing.


How is it that it (varroa) is part of their doing??


----------



## TomOB (Jun 1, 2003)

peacekeeperapiaries said:


> How is it that it (varroa) is part of their doing??


they sell products that result in more Varroa .... that result in less bees .... yadda


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries (Jun 23, 2009)

TomOB said:


> they sell products that result in more Varroa .... that result in less bees .... yadda


What products has Bayer sold that resulted in MORE Varroa???? Are you throwing your opinions out there because you disagree with chemical treatments, or are you basing your opinion on fact and or science?? Im having trouble remembering any product by Bayer that actually increased the number of Varroa w/in honeybee colonies, which appears to be what you are implying.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

One can certainly make the argument that treating the "bayer" way in time leads to more resistant mites, which in a way produces more mites. That is scientific. Nobody believes the chemical route is the answer. It's done as a stop gap measure. For most, a practice of last resort. Yet, if a beekeeper doesn't make any changes to avoid having to use the stop gap method again, they've become hooked and dependent on the "bridge to nowhere."


----------



## RiodeLobo (Oct 11, 2010)

That is like saying that it is the pharmaceutical companies fault that there are antibiotic resistant bacteria. This totally ignores the role of the user, who is responsible for the administration of the drugs. I agree that i will use chemicals as a stopgap measure, and that good hive design, management and most importantly genetics are the way forward, but to lay the blame on a Bayer is a stretch in my mind.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

The old Bayer bashing routine again.

Fact is, if we wanted to go back to primitive methods of agriculture where chemicals were not used, it would be better for the planet, sure. But we would starve. There are just too many people on the planet now.

Like most of the other problems we have brought about during our raping and pillaging of the planet, varroa mites on our bees are a direct result of mans interferance. So the solution, chemicals, is not ideal in every way. 

But it does get old to hear people ranting on about Bayer, when if we want to continue our current living standards and population levels, we HAVE to have them. Who caused varroa mites? Bayer? Or Beekeepers?

Always easy to point the finger at the next guy.


----------



## slickbrightspear (Jan 9, 2009)

why do we have to use the chemicals we have lots of people out of work. the answer is that people as a whole do not want to do the manual labor involved in getting rid of the chemicals.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Oldtimer said:


> if we want to continue our current living standards and population levels, we HAVE to have them.


Can't you see? You offer no better solution/hope with this argument. There are people willing to forgo this standard to avoid the dead end your path is heading. Bayer really isn't the problem, it's the person using the Bayer product, or buying into that mindset. Sure, there are varying degrees within this structure, but many still choose not to do the alternative.

From what I've heard of this book so far, I'm interested enough to buy it. On my Christmas list.

Harmony: A New Way of Looking at Our World


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Barry said:


> Can't you see? You offer no better solution/hope with this argument.


Yes Barry, I can. But my solution is too radical I didn't bother saying it.

But since you asked, here goes -

We need to drastically reduce the human population, to say, 3 million for the planet.

Then we don't lose all the animal species through habitat destruction, and we don't have to have thousands of acres of monoculture which requires chemicals because there is no natural balance.

Perfect solution? No. There's heaps of reasons why not to do it, including that we would have a lower standard of living. But look at the route we are going now. More and more people, same sized planet.

As to your book, can't comment haven't read it. Does it address population control? If not, ignore it. There's a lot of books.


----------



## jrbbees (Apr 4, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> There are just too many people on the planet now.


We all know the solution to that one.:scratch:


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Yeah, the OLD () and young get removed first.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Oldtimer said:


> There's heaps of reasons why not to do it, including that we would have a lower standard of living.


We would have a different standard of living, not necessarily lower. That's the fatal mistake (lie), that life without hard work is better. We've lost appreciation and gratification for the way nature works, slow, but with purpose and success.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Anyhow, back to the Bayer article, I see it's a thymol based treatment. Thymol is a natural product, and it works well, IF it's applied properly. Which is not always easy. 
Not fully explained in the article but hopefully they've developed a better way to apply it, making a better success rate.

They say "sustainable" palm oil. In fact, palm oil production is one of the things that is causing deforestation, and even land formerly used for food production by subsistence farmers is being grabbed to mass produce palm oil.

Once again comes down to human population pressure. But anyway, looking forward to seeing this product when it comes on the market it may be another improvement on what we have now.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

RiodeLobo said:


> that good hive design,


How does hive design, good or bad, whatever that means, effect varroa mites? Are there certain hive designs that promote production of varroa or their control?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Oldtimer said:


> Fact is, if we wanted to go back to primitive methods of agriculture where chemicals were not used, it would be better for the planet, sure. But we would starve. There are just too many people on the planet now.


In the movie, "The Vanishing Bee", it was stated that we loose about 30% of agricultural production even if we treat the crops. I don't know if that is true or not.

I don't know if nontreatment of varroa infested colonies is a primitive method or not. But, I am pretty well convinced that not treating colonies against varroa will end up w/ dead colonies. Tried that already.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

slickbrightspear said:


> why do we have to use the chemicals we have lots of people out of work. the answer is that people as a whole do not want to do the manual labor involved in getting rid of the chemicals.


So, if we put all of the people who are currently out of work to work in our agricultural fields and orchards across the nation we could have food w/out chemicals. Is that what you are saying? Send hoardes of people out into corn fields and soy bean fields and apple orchards and orange groves and grape arbors, etc., etc., to pick bugs and to pull (or perhaps eat) weeds?

Interesting idea. Would you please come to SC and start working on picking all of the varroa mites out of my hives? I'll supply the tent. You'll have to feed yourself.


----------



## slickbrightspear (Jan 9, 2009)

like I said people do not want to do the manual work involved in getting rid of the chemicals


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> So, if we put all of the people who are currently out of work to work .... Send hoardes of people out into corn fields and soy bean fields and apple orchards and orange groves and grape arbors, etc., etc., to pick bugs and to pull (or perhaps eat) weeds?


While in practise and in a democracy, this would be hard to do, the idea has merit.

In my country we have people who have been on welfare for years and in some cases generations, and sometimes too obese to work. At the same time we fly in people from pacific islands to harvest our crops.

I pay more tax than I should so these people can sit on their fat butts. Make 'em pick bugs!


----------



## TomOB (Jun 1, 2003)

peacekeeperapiaries said:


> What products has Bayer sold that resulted in MORE Varroa???? A)Are you throwing your opinions out there because you disagree with chemical treatments, or are you basing your opinion on fact and or science?? B)Im having trouble remembering any product by Bayer that actually increased the number of Varroa w/in honeybee colonies, which appears to be what you are implying.


A) I teach Chemistry and always propose using safe applications of chemicals where needed. I admit, propose, and teach that resistance is a by product of chemical use and more often than not a non chemical remedy is best.

B) Bayer puts nicotinoids in many of its products THAT ARE USED EXCLUSIVELY BY OTHERS OUTSIDE OF BEEKEEPERS.

Nicotinoids in small quantities have often been shown to cause disorientation in bees resulting in empty hives


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Of course, nicotinoids and in fact any insecticide used in non beekeeping use, comes in contact with bees, harm to the bees will result. Not rocket science.

But the world as it is now has to use chemicals, or have millions of people out picking bugs.

Plucking varroa out of a beehive is not really an option, so why bash Bayer for coming out with a new thymol product?


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries (Jun 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> Plucking varroa out of a beehive is not really an option, so why bash Bayer for coming out with a new thymol product?


I agree and wondered the same thing, I had hoped to be able to respond earlier but I got busy. I read in the article that the new product contains is a powder derived from Palm Trees and Thymol. Now many on this forum who are "chemical free" use "natural" products to treat their hives: e.o's, thymol, oxalic, coconut, spearmint, cinnamon....the list could go on and on....so now the big bad monster BAYER appears to be bringing a "natural" product to the market...if it turns out to be a great and more importantly effective product will you chose not to use it simply because its says BAYER???


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

slickbrightspear said:


> like I said people do not want to do the manual work involved in getting rid of the chemicals


What manual work do you do to get rid of the chemicals? Or are you one of the "people" of which you write?


----------



## slickbrightspear (Jan 9, 2009)

I grew up on a farm that did not use tractors or petrochemicals. we raised ,tobbacco and corn and yes we walked the fields and used a hoe to get rid of weeds, or a horse drawn cultivator I am well aware of the work involved and like I said we do not want to do the labor involved in getting off the chemicals.


----------



## RiodeLobo (Oct 11, 2010)

A world population of 3 million? That would give each surviving human 10.6 square km of arable land, or about 2620 acres. 

Additionally I am fairly sure not many of us would volunteer to be in the other 6,880,000,000 people who did not make the cut.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

peacekeeperapiaries said:


> I agree and wondered the same thing, I had hoped to be able to respond earlier but I got busy. I read in the article that the new product contains is a powder derived from Palm Trees and Thymol. Now many on this forum who are "chemical free" use "natural" products to treat their hives: e.o's, thymol, oxalic, coconut, spearmint, cinnamon....the list could go on and on....so now the big bad monster BAYER appears to be bringing a "natural" product to the market...if it turns out to be a great and more importantly effective product will you chose not to use it simply because its says BAYER???



True enough. And I think it's important to point out here the likely reason that Bayer has looked for such a product (more 'naturally' based) to sell - it's because more and more consumers are interested in buying those - and resistant to buying chem-based solutions. In the end, the control is always in the hands of the consumer.

Want something to change? Your most powerful vote is your dollar.


Adam


----------



## RiodeLobo (Oct 11, 2010)

I have always been confused with the word "natural" when it comes to chemicals. A chemical is a chemical. There are many examples of toxic substances that were born of earth and leaf, and not of the beaker and bunson burner. So if you are going to use chemical treatments what is the attraction to "natural" chemical treatments? It all comes down to how invasive and effective a treatment is; either it has the desired effect or not and are the side effects worth the results. Beyond that it all smacks of marketing.


----------



## beebreeder (Nov 24, 2009)

Exosect has been available in the uk for a number of years and has not been heavily used, most beekeepers question its efficacy.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Thanks for that BeeBreeder. Didn't catch the product is already in use.

Anyway, Googled it, here's the English Adf for it


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

peacekeeperapiaries said:


> What products has Bayer sold that resulted in MORE Varroa????


Have you talked to Mendes in North Fort Meyers? He's convinced that a Bayer product is causing an huge increase in mite numbers. He sites yards that pollinate...can't remember which, I think melons.. Half the yard went to the crop and half stayed home. He does mite counts once a month. Pollinating colonies have a huge spike in mites after pollination. He claims its caused by the neonic being used. 

I don't know, I'm just saying what he told me. Could be drift from other apiaries?


----------



## honeydreams (Aug 10, 2009)

TomOB said:


> http://www.bayercropscience.com/bcsweb/cropprotection.nsf/id/EN_20101116?open&l=EN&ccm=500020
> 
> Bayer expects us to pay for their product to remedy a situation that is no doubt, in my mind, part of their doing.


:scratch:
yeah Right!


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

The melon thing, sometimes this kind of situation is caused by the way varroa spread.

Varroa are very studied, but the precise mechanism of how they spread has been surprisingly understudied.

Varroa destructor has been found on both bumblebees, and carpet beetles. They cannot breed on either of these, but both visit flowers, for pollen. (And nectar for the bumblebee).

Drifting alone does not fully account for how varroa, once arriving in a country, can so quickly spread to every hive in the country. Especially wild hives that are miles away from the nearest hive would hardly get any drift. but they'll still get varroa soon enough.

A possibility is that the melons, or something around the melons, aided the way in which varroa spread.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Oldtimer said:


> Varroa destructor has been found on both bumblebees, and carpet beetles. They cannot breed on either of these, but both visit flowers, for pollen. (And nectar for the bumblebee).


Can you tell me where you read or heard that? I have often wondered about bees other than apis mellifera and whether varroa effected them too. What about wasps?


----------



## rrussell6870 (May 14, 2009)

VD has been noted on blooms during cotton floret tests in the MS delta... This finding was first noted in 99, and the average count has increased each year... The cotton board has stated that they are not a threat to the cotton and thus they will make no attempt to stop them... The same results were found in central florida's orange blooms... Always assumed that was well known, or I would have spoken up long ago.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Can't find the origional article where this was discussed.

Did a Google but nothing very good came up, about the best was this -

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoff-burg/invasion_bio/inv_spp_summ/varroa_destructor.html
_Although they have recently been found on other insects (including the bumblebee Bombus pennsylvanicus), varroa mites can only reproduce when associated with honeybees and thus are considered harmless to <>other insects_


----------



## rrussell6870 (May 14, 2009)

Back to Bayer... Are you guys actually saying that you think that this company has some secret plan to take over the world by producing chemicals that were too weak to actually kill the mites instead of just making them sick enough to become resistant?

Bayer was the first company to present products to control VD. In their first presentation they actually offered more than 200 different methods of killing VD, including several (USDA funded) programs that could have eradicated VD from North America within 3 years. This would mean however, that US and Canadian honey production would have had to be halted for four years... I even personally rejected such a notion as well as all of the "brass" of the bee industries for the US and Canada. The rejection was so intense that it spun into an industry demand of less than 1/20th of whatever the FDA approved as "Safe" for human consumption. Meaning that any contaminates from their products into the honey HAD TO BE NO MORE than 1/20th the level that was considered Safe.

This is where the weak formulations and methods of application came from. NONE of us new that VD would ever get this bad, so we demanded a less invasive means of control... what we got, is what we asked for...

As to the pressures of the natural market causing Bayer to seak other means... Lets be serious... Their global earnings are over 5 times what our entire industry produces each year.

Want to be mite and chemical free??? Take care of your bees by whatever means you deem necessary and if you loose all of them, by all means, dont blame it on your sweet tooth. It was greed that spread the mites, it was greed that kept them from being eradicated, and it is greed now that keeps them around. How much MORE does "treatment free" honey cost? How about "treatment free" packages? How about Resistant queens?

Like it or not folks, we are in this mess together and for the long haul... I just wish that we could quit fussing amongst each other and focus our efforts on bettering tomorrow's bee industry. We all have children... They deserve healthy lifestyles with healthy foods and plenty of them. The reason that most "treatment pro" people feel so strongly about this is because they feel like the only reason that the pests keep coming back is because of the guy down the street that refuses to kill his... and on the other hand, the guy down the street feels like the guy that treated has made his bees weaker and is thus regressing their developement...

Both sides have rights and wrongs... but both sides are equal in that they want whats best for man and bee, and they both want the end result to be the same... NO NEED FOR CHEMICALS, HEALTHY BEES... I have been giving resistant queens away at random for people to use as breeding stock... They are not russians so they do not posses traits that would serve a frigid climate better than most of ours.

Want a change??? Breeders, I encourage you to do the same each season... You know that you will sell out of every queen that you can produce already, so you will not feel a great pinch in the pocket... If every breeder that has resistant stock that will serve the industries purposes would donate 5% of his queens to people who have 5 or more hives, we will see real results within only a few years.

I will go one step further and say that the breeder should use good judgement when issuing these queens...ie..Dont send russians to central florida and italians to canada... I am willing to donate some funding to a program such as this... Thoughts???


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries (Jun 23, 2009)

Michael Palmer said:


> Have you talked to Mendes in North Fort Meyers? He's convinced that a Bayer product is causing an huge increase in mite numbers....?


Never met the guy, but I know he runs a huge operation, i would respect that his theory may be correct...he has been at it a long time. I dont pollinate nor do I grow crops, but someone out there is creating a demand that BAYER and other companies are trying to meet. Good for the bees?? probably not but thats out of our control, as long as there is a demand someone will try to meet it and FOOD is in somewhat high demand.
My point was people want to make the chemical companies out to be the monster when in fact they are providing a product to a market that either requests or requires it....its up to the market, in this case beekeepers, to determine if the product advertised in this post is a viable product. Some may not agree with the use of chemicals or "natural" treatments...others (usually those with hard money invested) are looking to keep healthy, PRODUCTIVE colonies and feed their families....many advocate only natural treatments in their hives...but now a chemical giant is introducing what appears to be a natural treatment and they are vilified because of their name, not the product they are advertising....it might be an effective product but because Bayers name is attached its evil.


----------



## Axtmann (Dec 29, 2002)

Bayer Crop Science, makes pesticides that are widely implicated in the deaths of honeybees worldwide. 
Bayer's clothianidin was identified as causing the death of two-thirds of honeybees in southern Germany in 2008.

Exosect - leading provider of Intelligent Pest Management solutions - has announced the recent acquisition of its unique product for the control of varroa mites in honey bees by Bayer CropScience. The acquisition was made for an undisclosed figure and gives Bayer CropScience worldwide rights to sell the product* and to further develop a portfolio of bee health products for the control of mites (including varroa mites and tracheal mites) using Exosect’s platform technology, Entostat™*. 

Is this a joke, or they really interested to save the bees?


----------



## rrussell6870 (May 14, 2009)

Thanks. Now let's see how many people here actually want to put there money where their mouth is and do something other than fuss. ;-)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I agree.  But where is the fun in that?


----------



## brushmouth (Jan 17, 2010)

Axtmann said:


> Bayer Crop Science, makes pesticides that are widely implicated in the deaths of honeybees worldwide.
> Bayer's clothianidin was identified as causing the death of two-thirds of honeybees in southern Germany in 2008.
> 
> Exosect - leading provider of Intelligent Pest Management solutions - has announced the recent acquisition of its unique product for the control of varroa mites in honey bees by Bayer CropScience. The acquisition was made for an undisclosed figure and gives Bayer CropScience worldwide rights to sell the product* and to further develop a portfolio of bee health products for the control of mites (including varroa mites and tracheal mites) using Exosect’s platform technology, Entostat™*.
> ...


Good Post !
I didn't get that feel warm and fuzzy either when I read the news release.
Ironic position in which Bayer have placed themselves. ?

PS: USA Beekeepers, there is still time to contact your congressmen over S-510. Vote next Monday after Thanksgiving.
This bill has to BEE stopped, large corporate backing, and is against the small producer.
http://www.chooseliberty.org/fda_takeover.htm

BM


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

This picking varroa mites off your honeybees gives “nit picking” a new meaning.



Oldtimer said:


> ...if we wanted to go back to primitive methods of agriculture... we would starve...


A candidate for State Commissioner of Agriculture told me a lecturer at a seminar he attended said that "...returning to the way agriculture used to be, would require a number of stoop laborers equivalent to every teenager in America, each one working fulltime breaking, preparing, planting, chopping, hoeing, tilling, cultivating, picking, transporting, and marketing 4-1/2 acres of cropland per year.” Now many of you have trouble getting your 14 year olds off the sofa or cell phone long enough to mow the lawn with a riding lawn mower? I say Oldtimer is correct



sqkcrk said:


> ... it was stated that we loose about 30% of agricultural production even if we treat the crops...


I understand we loose another 25% before the crops reach market to things like rot, spillage and rats.

I don’t see people lining up to take Eddy Albert’s place on “Green Acres.” So maybe Bayer is doing us a favor. At any rate, we now know more about varroa than we did, and knowledge may lead to better controls.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

When I was in FFA int he early 90's, 2% of the population was farmers, and another 3% were hobby farmers (folks who worked a regular job but farmed on the side.) One American farmer could produce enough food for 100 people is what we were taught.

Hmm...just found a thing that said during the Reagan administration, one American farmer could produce enough food to feed 74 people. Google turned up another website saying that one organic mini-farmer working 40-45 hours a week can produce enough food for 24 people on 3/4 of an acre.

IIRC, one of the early American colonial settlements produced something like 12 or 15 bushels of corn per acre.

I've been around successful farmers. They tell me the piece of machinery that will pay for itself faster than any other piece of machinery is a chemical sprayer. That should tell you something.

The Amish in my area get around and travel just fine in their horse and buggies or barefoot express. I prefer the convenience of my polluting truck. Technology isn't all bad. (Why isn't anyone hollering about how bad auto exhaust is on bees? It can't be good for them.)


----------



## slickbrightspear (Jan 9, 2009)

rrussell6870 said:


> If every breeder that has resistant stock that will serve the industries purposes would donate 5% of his queens to people who have 5 or more hives, we will see real results within only a few years.
> 
> I will go one step further and say that the breeder should use good judgement when issuing these queens...ie..Dont send russians to central florida and italians to canada... I am willing to donate some funding to a program such as this... Thoughts???


I asked about trying to get funding for a goverment program to do just what you are saying russell on another list and was quickly informed that most of the largest commercial bee keepers do not want resistant stock and that it would do no good for 25% of their hives to be requeened with resistant stock as they are requeening 3-4 times a year already. when I said if they are requeening 3-4 times a year they are probably the people that need them the most, I was just informed that it would not work. although I agree with you very much.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

You were talking to a moron. Best try again & talk to somebody else.


----------



## slickbrightspear (Jan 9, 2009)

I would not call them a moron but they certainly did not agree with me.


----------



## rrussell6870 (May 14, 2009)

Slick,

One of two reasons that your suggestions were shot down...

1. They were not commercial bee keepers in the first place...

2. They assumed you meant russians, russian hybrids, or survivor stock from ill-productive strains...

These are the most common reasons for the downplay of any actual solutions...

As far as a government funded program... it simply will not happen... I have already discussed this many many times with the brass of the USDA, and each time it was clear that their hands are tied. The only option that the government would consider is mandatory treatments at the instruction of the USDA and FDA. It has been done before... They simply make it mandatory for EVERY colony to be registered, then they require certain treatments in order to make an attempt to eradicate the pests... This will not work and we all know it...there are far to many colonies that would never get registered and far too many "organic" producers that would say the government took their only income. So lets leave uncle sam out of it... Bee keepers have always taken care of each other, up until the organic/treatment fight began.

The sad truth is that if the mites were to be eradicated, what would it mean for the small organic honey producers? If no one needed to use treatments anymore, how would they sell honey? Surely if all honey was chemical free, the stores would buy from the large companies that could sell it in larger amounts and for less... "Local" honey is a way to cure allergy problems, and that has always been the door for small operations to sell honey... But now with the organic craze and the need for large operations to treat, the organic crowd has found a means to sell across the nation... 

There is a price to pay, for any step we take from here... But make no mistake, the bees have been getting stronger in their own fight against mites since the moment that they arrived... with all of the different strains developing resistances, the day WILL come that VD (R) is no longer a threat to the bee industry and we will HAVE to be united when that day comes if the smaller operations want to stay in business...

I want EVERY bee keeper to stay around forever...Large, Small, Organic, Treatment, Migratory, Backyard, ALL OF THEM... We have a comon enemy, why not work together???


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

I like this guy.


----------



## slickbrightspear (Jan 9, 2009)

russell
sounds very good to me


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

rrussell6870 said:


> The only option that the government would consider is mandatory treatments at the instruction of the USDA and FDA. It has been done before... They simply make it mandatory for EVERY colony to be registered, then they require certain treatments in order to make an attempt to eradicate the pests... This will not work and we all know it...there are far to many colonies that would never get registered and far too many "organic" producers that would say the government took their only income. So lets leave uncle sam out of it... Bee keepers have always taken care of each other, up until the organic/treatment fight began.
> 
> The sad truth is that if the mites were to be eradicated, what would it mean for the small organic honey producers? If no one needed to. . .


You're right, it would never work, and we all know it. I think we could have prevented AHB from entering the U.S. from the south by employing nets all along our southern border. 

Using the "organic" straw man doesn't cut it. It's simply an impossible feat.


----------



## rrussell6870 (May 14, 2009)

Slick,

I will also note that if they were requeening 3 or 4 times a year already, they were NOT commercial beekeepers. The need for strong colonies in commercial applications demands that we can not afford to have any "downtime" between laying, and thus we cannot allow swarming, this may mean splits, or selling nucs, etc... 

Most large operations will requeen in fall with cells if they are happy with the stock that they have... This gives them a fresh queen to build up with in spring, and their own drones to keep the good genes from the prior season... 

From the breeders standpoint, most are developing some form of resistance in their queens no matter what breed or mix they are... thus the cells they send to the large operations are already showing these qualities... It is a much slower process than doing something drastic like requeening every hive to pure russians, but it will come to the same conclusion (only without all the ill effects of losing hundreds of years of selective breeding for production).


----------



## The Honey Householder (Nov 14, 2008)

I gave up on Bayer over 15 years. Instead of giving the money to big corp. I pay it out to the package producer. I'm a chemical free beekeeper and I like the price I get for my honey. I might complain about how much I have to pay for bees, but all and all I make more $$ now then premite beekeeping. :scratch:


----------



## beekuk (Dec 31, 2008)

Don't get to excited about the so called new product....unless its going to be improved.
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248530


----------

