Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum
BEEKEEPING LEARNING CENTER => GENERAL BEEKEEPING - MAIN POSTING FORUM. => Topic started by: DennisB on December 06, 2007, 11:45:34 am
-
I ran across this paper that was written for a Masters thesis at Virginia Polytechnic on the the subject of the Effects of Miticides on queens and drones reproduction. Not sure if the link had been posted before but the paper is excellent reading if you want to see what effects the different miticides have on the reproduction process for queens and drones. It is well written so even a dummy like me can understand the language.
As a freshman in the beekeeping world I am still trying to make sense of the different treatments and processes associated with varrora and SHB and any other problems that are encountered by the bees today. I would prefer to keep my workings as natural as possible for healthy hives (as we all would) but understand the urgency that sometimes arrives when the problems begin to happen. Fortunately I have a lot of years left in me to keep learning.
Here is the link: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08162007-092313/unrestricted/lmburley.pdf
Your thoughts are always appreciated.
DennisB
-
After reading that, you should see why I don't put anything in my hives, including thymol and oxalic acid etc. etc. etc.
-
I don't think you should put anything in your hives that you wouldn't put in your self
kirko
-
kirk-o, i hope you don't use anything from toothpaste to shaving lotion. many contain thymol. ;)
good paper. i have saved it to go over in detail after i get back from the family thing. thanks!
-
Dennis, good, I have bookmarked that page to read at another time too, thanks for doing the search and providing us with great information. Have a wonderful and great day, Cindi
-
it would be rather hard to fit a LR frame inside a human body :shock:, even a top-bar might be a bit too much for a man to "swallow" :evil:
even more, how could you ever put a few thousand bees inside yourself :roll:
everything has it's side effects.
-
DennisB
I went through and spent most of last night and this morning reading the report. It has it's good and bad. The report is very nice in that it shows how chemicals affect hives. How drones suffer from the effects of many chemical treatments. How hives reject queen cells if they have chemicals on them.
All of which is very good. The bad however is this is one of those reports that drives me insane.
There is no real research(experimentation) done by the author. The author takes research from others and makes a report based on the several research experiments. There are 9 pages of references in this report. The author didn't do any real experimentation.
Now the research that was done was very type specific and there was a lot of different research experiments done. The effects of a certain chemical on one specfic item. You have research on each chemical and the effects on sperm count, effects on drone health, and many more. So some of the research she uses to make her report is some very sound science. And bringing it all together makes it easy to show how they can be linked together. But the author didn't do any of the experiments herself. So this report is the amalgamation of many research experiments. Reports like this have their place they help the right hand see what the left hand is doing. Also it can show how results from different experiments can help reinforce other studies and research. I will also say this strict research documents are boring as hell to read.
It's a nice way to get a good grade on a report. Is there anything groundbreaking about the report? No.
Simply put chemicals are bad for hives. They have a dramatic effect on many aspects of the hive and it's health.
Now if you wanted to really see how good the report was you would have to go through each of the items cited in the nine pages of research. Which will of course lead to documents with their own pages of research. The Thesis has a review board so it is definitley better than most.
Now buried in the report was a reference to research on Varroa and feral bees. It's source an article in American Bee Journal. Sigh.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
-
Hey with all those chemicals the mites get more resistant and the bees get weaker.Plus you pollut the wax and honey.Say what you want think I'm nuts but you are polluting your hives and preventing your bees from becomeing resistant.I gues if you want to be a Medic for bugs thats your business
kirko
-
Hey with all those chemicals the mites get more resistant and the bees get weaker.Plus you pollut the wax and honey.Say what you want think I'm nuts but you are polluting your hives and preventing your bees from becomeing resistant.I gues if you want to be a Medic for bugs thats your business
kirko
I don't want to give the wrong impression. I am opposed to chemicals in hives. I am sometimes frustrated by reading reports that are geared toward an easy grade. it makes it harder for beekeepers to have good documentation to back their positions.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
-
the lead guy on the advisory committee, Dr. Fell, is in our local beekeeper group. He is the guy who advocated using Apistan.
http://forum.beemaster.com/index.php?topic=11672.0
Lisa Burley, the author, is also in the group. I think i met her at the last meeting. She was trying to get the group to have a nuc/queen rearing session. i thought that was a good idea.
I guess some of those other advisory people might also be in the group. I've only been to 2 meetings so far.
-
Hey with all those chemicals the mites get more resistant and the bees get weaker.Plus you pollute the wax and honey.Say what you want think I'm nuts but you are polluting your hives and preventing your bees from becoming resistant.I guess if you want to be a Medic for bugs thats your business
kirko
Nobody is selectively breeding the mites.
Nature is, and they are getting stronger/more resistant.
I have been told of a feral hive in a tree on my friends property.
He says bees have been in there for years.
Hopefully I can trap a swarm from that tree next spring.
I plan to go natural cell size and let the new queen, when superseding takes place, breed with her own drones.
I will be taking a 'hands off' approach with a top bar hive.
-
Understudy,
Do you have a scientific background? While I will admit that this "Thesis" is heavily laden with literature cited it does contain a Materials and Methods section which indicates some experimentation was done.
Most thesis papers are exceptionally long considering you come up with a process and do your experiments and then show examples that back up your results from other people's work. While a lot of the info provided may have been literature cited, there may not have been much the author could have added to the subject. I just started working on just part of someone's research on population genetics with regards to a certain plant species and I can tell you that a bunch of work can be put together for very limited data and very limited advancement of knowledge.
Let me state that again... A lot of tedious work can be put together to provide very little return.
If you think that is bad you should try reading someone's doctoral work. I saw one the other day I considered stealing to use as added weight in my truck bed for winter!
-
all those chemicals the mites get more resistant and the bees get weaker.
So why is it the chemicals make the mites stronger, but make the bees weaker?
-
Because weak bees are 'supported' by the killing of the mites via chemicals (thus they develop no resistance to the mites, they don't have to, and they continue their line on), and the mites that survive the chemicals grow on to make more mites that survive chemicals.
-
It was more of a rhetorical question for Kirk-o. :-P
But that still doesn't explain the chemicals that the mites don't become resistant to.
-
reinbeau...that way, the survivor bees become stronger too, now don't they?
-
Understudy,
Do you have a scientific background? While I will admit that this "Thesis" is heavily laden with literature cited it does contain a Materials and Methods section which indicates some experimentation was done.
Most thesis papers are exceptionally long considering you come up with a process and do your experiments and then show examples that back up your results from other people's work. While a lot of the info provided may have been literature cited, there may not have been much the author could have added to the subject. I just started working on just part of someone's research on population genetics with regards to a certain plant species and I can tell you that a bunch of work can be put together for very limited data and very limited advancement of knowledge.
Let me state that again... A lot of tedious work can be put together to provide very little return.
If you think that is bad you should try reading someone's doctoral work. I saw one the other day I considered stealing to use as added weight in my truck bed for winter!
My response from Dr. Malcolm Sanford University of Florida Entomology dept and Exec. Secratary for the Florida State Beekeepers association.
Brendhan,
This is a nice find; thanks for pointing it out. As you mention, reports of this nature have their use and are valuable. The fact that the author did no specific research herself is not necessarily problematic. As you state, others can use the information and design their experiments based on looking at original references. Now we can wait for Ms. Burley's Ph.D. dissertation, which probably will report on specific research she designs.
Malcolm T. Sanford
Now I didn't find it DennisB did. I thought I would pass it along.
The paper is a Thesis as mentioned. And yes there can be a lot of tedious research put into one. And Doctorals are torture to read. I tend to look with a very sceptical eye at entomology papers lately because there have been some lousy ones. I have started checking references also. I get flustered when magazine articles and powerpoint presentations are used as references. There is some very good research science in her report. And she comes up with some very good information bringing those reports together. However when a report consist of a lot of references and very little to no original material I tend to be sceptical.
I have seen 300 page thesis's with 5 pages of references and a 40 page one with 20 pages of references. I tend to be a bit harsh if you have to many references it seems to me a bit like a cut and paste report.
If a report is going to one that extrapolates on other research to drawn a new conclusion or idea I think a bit more should be done that say report A says this and report B says this so we can say C. I want to see that C was tested and works. I am a harsh taskmaster on this but lately I have been dealing with some rotten science from people with PhD or Dr in the title and I am thinking half a million in tution later and this is what I get. Someone needs to ask for a refund.
Please don't think I hate all reports. There is some incredible science going on out there. Some great ideas being explored. But I have been feeling burned lately by the establishment that is suppose to represent us. So I tend to look with a critical eye.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
On my way to Salt lake.
-
It was more of a rhetorical question for Kirk-o. :-P
But that still doesn't explain the chemicals that the mites don't become resistant to.
What chemicals? You mean like the more 'natural' treatments like oxalic or formic? Even the use of those methods keeps the bees from 'evolving'. That's why the natural types don't want any chemical use at all. It's actually true, if we stopped treating the bees would eventually evolve resistance. Problem is a commercial beekeeper can't afford to let nature take her course (and I don't blame them, they've got to eat, too!). So we all keep treating and prolonging the process.
They (the mites) won't develop a resistance to the powdered sugar treatment, as that's a mechanical method. Effectiveness isn't part of this particular equation ;)
-
Thanks everyone for the input. My reasoning on posting this was to seed the pot and get as many opinions as possible on the chemical topic. I myself would like to go totally free of additives of these kinds, but I also have to look at the other side of the coin. Man has benefited greatly through the use of such chemicals as anti-botics, additional vitamins, medicines and machines of all kinds with longer healthier lives compared to many years ago. Man has also used all of the above in many bad ways as well thus causing many of the same situations of resistance etc. From a personal viewpoint I feel that I can take the losses of bees as long as I know that I am working to develop a hardier, more resistant colony in a natural way without the use of outside additives, but I do understand and appreciate others that adopt a different approach.
DennisB
-
They (the mites) won't develop a resistance to the powdered sugar treatment, as that's a mechanical method. Effectiveness isn't part of this particular equation ;)
It is my understanding that oxalic and formic is mechanical as well and that it burns the mouth parts of the mites and they die of starvation. This is why it has been used for decades in Europe with no resistance. I am in total agreement on the hard chemicals. I just take issue when someone groups all treatments together as "chemical" (with the exception of powdered sugar, which they will not consider a chemical even though it is).
BTW, my issue is not with you, but since your the only one responding, you get the earful. :-P
-
Thanks everyone for the input. My reasoning on posting this was to seed the pot and get as many opinions as possible on the chemical topic. I myself would like to go totally free of additives of these kinds, but I also have to look at the other side of the coin. Man has benefited greatly through the use of such chemicals as anti-botics, additional vitamins, medicines and machines of all kinds with longer healthier lives compared to many years ago. Man has also used all of the above in many bad ways as well thus causing many of the same situations of resistance etc. From a personal viewpoint I feel that I can take the losses of bees as long as I know that I am working to develop a hardier, more resistant colony in a natural way without the use of outside additives, but I do understand and appreciate others that adopt a different approach.
DennisB
DennisB
It was a great report to post. Even though certain aspects of it drives me nuts. It was still a good report. I want people if they choose to go chemical free to have good reasons behind it. I want people who use chemicals to have good reasons behind their choices. I may not agree but I very much respect Finsky's POV on this matter.
If you want me to give you an example of how that can go badly. I have another forum where I posted a discussion on vaccines. You would not believe how many people will not do them. Or give them to their kids and then claim religous reasons. When questioned about their research all them claim to have done research but most of them never get beyond a newspaper article. I don't want this thread to take a highjack so please if members want to discuss that go to the Coffee House.
I think chemicals have their place, right now my hives are not one of them.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
currently on layover in Houstonat the bar with a Bass Ale and some dinner.
-
It is my understanding that oxalic and formic is mechanical as well and that it burns the mouth parts of the mites and they die of starvation. This is why it has been used for decades in Europe with no resistance. I am in total agreement on the hard chemicals. I just take issue when someone groups all treatments together as "chemical" (with the exception of powdered sugar, which they will not consider a chemical even though it is).
BTW, my issue is not with you, but since your the only one responding, you get the earful. :-P
That's ok, you've taught me something here (about how oxalic and formic actually work). Thanx! ;)
-
It was a great report to post. Even though certain aspects of it drives me nuts. It was still a good report. I want people if they choose to go chemical free to have good reasons behind it. I want people who use chemicals to have good reasons behind their choices. I may not agree but I very much respect Finsky's POV on this matter.
If you want me to give you an example of how that can go badly. I have another forum where I posted a discussion on vaccines. You would not believe how many people will not do them. Or give them to their kids and then claim religous reasons. When questioned about their research all them claim to have done research but most of them never get beyond a newspaper article. I don't want this thread to take a highjack so please if members want to discuss that go to the Coffee House.
I think chemicals have their place, right now my hives are not one of them.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
currently on layover in Houstonat the bar with a Bass Ale and some dinner.
Brendhan,
Very well said and I couldn't agree more. There is nothing wrong with having different views and values and disagreeing. But the important part that you have identified is the respect for others in their decisions. Each person needs to evaluate their situation and decide what best fits their needs. I personally have not used hard chemicals in about 10 years, but still rely on some of the softer chemicals on an as needed basis.
It only hurts the reputation of the chemical free position when some of the members feel the need to express their uneducated opinion and group all chemicals as one and the same. There is not a beekeeper that I know that wouldn't prefer not having to treat. Unfortunately it is not that simple and an individual's circumstances dictate what they need to do. It is easy to advocate a "let bees be bees" policy when you have only a few hives and minimal financial impact if they should perish.
As you can tell, just like certain aspects of the report drives you nuts, people not understanding that "no treatment" is not an option for everyone drives me a little nuts (OK, a little MORE nuts :shock:)
Have a safe trip, and I'm still waiting for your visit to the NorthEast. Hopefully in February :lol:
-
First off when I screw up I need to admit it.
In my original report I screwed up.
There is original research in the report. As a matter of fact there are three original research items. I have to admit I got buried in all the comparitive research to existing studies that I thought the original experiments were result comparission.
I sent a copy to Dr. Jamie Ellis he pointed out for me the original research seperation. So big thanks to him.
The research does to a lot of comparrisions to existing reseach to either help reinforce the research or to dispute it. And I missed it as original research. I like the report the first time. I like it even more know.
Apologies for the screw up. Thanks for your paitence.
Sincerely,
Brendhan