Effects of Miticides on Hive and Bees

[Understudy]

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.

[reinbeau]

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!  ;)

[Robo]

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:

[Understudy]

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