Poorly chicken

[Egluntyne]

Interesting article **here**

[beesontoast]

The Environmental Protection Agency originally approved Apistan® strips for varroa control. These are plastic strips impregnated with fluvalinate as the active ingredient. For unexposed mites, this treatment is generally 99.8% effective, and if the colony is not exposed to heavy reinfestation, treatment should be effective for 12 months. Experience has shown, however, that resistance by mites has probably occurred and is occuring in many areas.

 

Please note that in the UK and many other places, Apistan no longer works, as chemical beekeepers have succeeded in selecting for treatment-resistant mites.

 

I use powdered sugar, which is non-toxic and effective enough to keep mites down to levels that enable the bees to manage them.

[OXFORDBEE]

Please note that in the UK and many other places, Apistan no longer works...

This statement also applies to Bayvarol which is another pyrethroid based varroacide. The varroa mutation has made both products ineffective where there are resistant mites.

 

I believe the mutation is not metabolically expensive so there is no selection pressure against mites that have the mutation. In short this means that it is unlikely that the above products will become effective again once resistant mites are in your area.

[Egluntyne]

Thanks both.

[pdcambs]

 

Please note that in the UK and many other places, Apistan no longer works, as chemical beekeepers have succeeded in selecting for treatment-resistant mites.

 

 

I think that's a little misleading. It implies "chemical Beekeepers" were attempting to select for a treatment-resistant mite. Whereas in fact a mite somewhere mutated to become resistant to one widespread treatment and decedents of that resistant mite prospered under that treatment. So that over the last couple of years those who did rely on Apistan and/or Bayverol have had to alter their husbandry methods.

 

There is a whole debate within beekeeping at the moment on hive types and management techniques, with some strong opinions, both of which have some merit, on each side; but I would not have thought myself that this a place to get too deeply into that.

[beesontoast]

There is a whole debate within beekeeping at the moment on hive types and management techniques, with some strong opinions, both of which have some merit, on each side; but I would not have thought myself that this a place to get too deeply into that.

 

Quite so. And I won't if you won't.

[chickenanne]

...I use powdered sugar, which is non-toxic and effective enough to keep mites down to levels that enable the bees to manage them.

 

Hi, do you solely use sugar-dusting, and nowt else? I'm intending to use Thymol in September, and possibly oxalic acid later on in the winter if I have to, but have been dusting at each inspection - I still have mite levels which IMO are growing too high.

[legend21]

Hi oxalic acid is the preferred option in our bee club

 

Jackie

 

no bees, just a bee club member

[beesontoast]

Hi, do you solely use sugar-dusting, and nowt else? I'm intending to use Thymol in September, and possibly oxalic acid later on in the winter if I have to, but have been dusting at each inspection - I still have mite levels which IMO are growing too high.

 

I have used nothing else for 5 years now.

 

IMO most of the answer to Varroa is providing the best possible conditions for bees to thrive. No medications, no top ventilation, no frames, no foundation.

[Guest]

Sometimes this whole beekeeping thing sounds too sciency for me. It can't always have been that way!

 

Science is waaaay beyond my understanding. I might have to ask a sixth former to help me.

[m100]

I use powdered sugar, which is non-toxic and effective enough to keep mites down to levels that enable the bees to manage them.

 

Controlled trials reported quite recently in the scientific press have apparently shown that sugar dusting demonstrably does nothing to control varroa - this conflicts with results from previous studies such as http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/pdf/2001/02/fakhim.pdf

 

Unfortunately I can't locate the more recent research paper

 

Varroa appears to have almost disappeared in many hives this year with almost zero mite drop being the norm rather than the exception.

[chickenanne]

I'm going to need more than sugar dusting anyway: I had a very high level of mites when I acquired the bees in Spring, whilst the levels have come down to a bearable level they are not low enough IMO.

I would hope that following Thymol treatment they will be low enough that I may not need to treat again in the winter.

[DominicJ]

I think that's a little misleading. It implies "chemical Beekeepers" were attempting to select for a treatment-resistant mite.

 

They were.

They put in place a selective breeding process that ensured only the mites most resistant to the treatment could survive.

It may not have been intentional, but thats not really relevent.

No one intended to create drug resistant human diseases, and drunk drivers rarely intend to kill anyone, but thats the effect of the action taken.

 

 

Sometimes this whole beekeeping thing sounds too sciency for me.

As lifetimes get shorter, evolution becomes a bigger factor, its hard to get a shorter life span than a parasite that attacks insects.

 

 

 

****************

Boring Sciency Bit

****************

Every Person is slightly different.

Every Varroa Mite is slightly different.

Every Rat is slightly different.

 

Those differences, as well as affecting height, eye colour, hair colour ect, also deal with toxin resistance.

 

So, if you were to feed 100 rats, 29,700mg of table sugar per kg of body mass, statisticaly, half of them would die.

The 50 that survived would be the 50 most resistant to sugar poisioning.

If they were to breed, they pass on their sugar resistance to their offspring.

If you were then carry out the test on the offspring, at the same dose, less than 50 should die, and the rest get to breed again.

Each time you repeat the experiment, more rats should survive, and eventualy, a 29:1000 dose of sugar wont kill any of your test rats.

They might have a whole range of debilitating weaknesses, but they will have massive sugar resistance.

 

Apply that to mites, where the dose was high enough to kill 95% of mites, and the breeding cycle is a week, and your in trouble, quickly.

 

 

******

End of science bit, probably still boring.

******

 

A bee is about 30mm long right?

A Varroa Mite is about 2mm long

1/15th the size.

I'm about 175 cm tall.

A parasite 1/15th my size would be 11cm.

 

I dont need medication to pick 11cm mites off me, why do bees?

[pdcambs]

I think that's a little misleading. It implies "chemical Beekeepers" were attempting to select for a treatment-resistant mite.

 

They were.

They put in place a selective breeding process that ensured only the mites most resistant to the treatment could survive.

It may not have been intentional, but thats not really relevent.

No one intended to create drug resistant human diseases, and drunk drivers rarely intend to kill anyone, but thats the effect of the action taken.

 

 

Yes, mutation means resistance to any medication is possible, but that is a far cry from saying those who use such a medication are trying to cause such a mutation, which was my point, surely you are not contesting that?

 

 

Sometimes this whole beekeeping thing sounds too sciency for me.

As lifetimes get shorter, evolution becomes a bigger factor, its hard to get a shorter life span than a parasite that attacks insects.

 

 

 

****************

Boring Sciency Bit

****************

Every Person is slightly different.

Every Varroa Mite is slightly different.

Every Rat is slightly different.

 

Those differences, as well as affecting height, eye colour, hair colour ect, also deal with toxin resistance.

 

So, if you were to feed 100 rats, 29,700mg of table sugar per kg of body mass, statisticaly, half of them would die.

The 50 that survived would be the 50 most resistant to sugar poisioning.

If they were to breed, they pass on their sugar resistance to their offspring.

If you were then carry out the test on the offspring, at the same dose, less than 50 should die, and the rest get to breed again.

Each time you repeat the experiment, more rats should survive, and eventualy, a 29:1000 dose of sugar wont kill any of your test rats.

They might have a whole range of debilitating weaknesses, but they will have massive sugar resistance.

 

Apply that to mites, where the dose was high enough to kill 95% of mites, and the breeding cycle is a week, and your in trouble, quickly.

 

 

******

End of science bit, probably still boring.

******

 

A bee is about 30mm long right?

A Varroa Mite is about 2mm long

1/15th the size.

I'm about 175 cm tall.

A parasite 1/15th my size would be 11cm.

 

I dont need medication to pick 11cm mites off me, why do bees?

 

You are Anthropomorphizing and over simplifying the situation. We are not bees, bees don’t have hands like we do nor do we have segmented body parts within which the mite can escape being dislodged; but if I put a 11cm leach on the middle of your back you’d have problems reaching that even though you have a large brain to rationalize the situation where bees lack such ability.

 

Apistan efficacy was effectively 100%, it was not poorly applied treatments that caused the resistance but mutation and the spread of that one mutation, so your rat/sugar analogy is not comparable.

 

The Varroa mite evolved for millions of years as a parasite of the larger Russian honeybee. Unfortunately once it transferred to the smaller European honeybee the equilibrium between parasite and host was so unbalanced the host was killed by this parasite. Yes, if we all just left the mite and bees to get on with it, after devastating losses in the magnitude of maybe 98% adaptations in both bee and mite would have settled down and bee populations would have recovered. It’s easy to look at that situation in hindsight and make sweeping generalizations that criticize conventional beekeeping, and while there are lessons we can learn about bee husbandry and IPM (integrated pest management) from the experience, it is not possible, practical (or wise) to dictate one method that everyone should follow before the true nature of the problem is understood, as I said, hindsight is very convenient, for some agendas.

 

Yes, it can also be argued that some treatments (particularly medications) are driven by businesses seeking to profit from offering a solution to a perceived problem…. (remind me again why Omlet are making these beehauses?) …but equally it is not easy to tell beekeepers (or chicken owners) that the best thing they can do is nothing, and let their charges simply die.

[beesontoast]

 

Controlled trials reported quite recently in the scientific press have apparently shown that sugar dusting demonstrably does nothing to control varroa

 

It takes a scientist to prove the opposite of what anyone can observe themselves.

 

Varroa appears to have almost disappeared in many hives this year with almost zero mite drop being the norm rather than the exception.

 

Maybe they are getting the idea that they are not wanted?

 

Or maybe, now most people have stopped using pyrethroids, the bees are beginning to recover their strength and can deal with the problem themselves.

[DominicJ]

Yes, mutation means resistance to any medication is possible, but that is a far cry from saying those who use such a medication are trying to cause such a mutation, which was my point, surely you are not contesting that?

 

I'm not saying it was their intent, but it was a predicable outcome.

Like if you're driving drunk, your likely to crash.

 

You are Anthropomorphizing and over simplifying the situation. We are not bees, bees don’t have hands like we do nor do we have segmented body parts within which the mite can escape being dislodged

 

Probably, its why I moved it out of the science bit.

 

Apistan efficacy was effectively 100%, it was not poorly applied treatments that caused the resistance but mutation and the spread of that one mutation, so your rat/sugar analogy is not comparable.

 

I disagree.

A single molecule of whatever the active componant in apistan is was not an L100 lethal dose for a mite.

We know this because some mites survived, it simply killed enough for the bees to carry on regardless.

Those mites it did not kill, were either lucky enough to avoid coming into contact with any apistan, or lucky enough to only come into contact with what was for them a none lethal dose.

 

Mites that had traits that kept them from any apistan would survive to breed, and those that were more likely to surive contact would breed.

A new generation a week would, in human terms, give the mites 30,000 years to have evolved resistance to this stuff.

 

Either it kills all of them, all the time, or you are selecting for resistance.

 

it is not possible, practical (or wise) to dictate one method that everyone should follow before the true nature of the problem is understood, as I said, hindsight is very convenient, for some agendas.

Not my intention, I dont have a better suggestion than use Apistan till the mites have become immune and hope something else turns up.

I was simply refuting the point that, because bee keepers didnt want apistan immune mites, they obviously werent trying to create them.

[beesontoast]

Not my intention, I dont have a better suggestion than use Apistan till the mites have become immune and hope something else turns up.

 

So, carry on selecting for treatment-resistant bees? Not very helpful.

 

I was simply refuting the point that, because bee keepers didnt want apistan immune mites, they obviously werent trying to create them.

 

Most beekeepers would not have been aware of the fact that they were unwittingly selecting pyrethroid-resistant mites, but the company making the treatment - Bayer - were certainly very aware: they know exactly what happens when you expose an organism to low levels of a toxin over many years. They managed to make a nice profit out of beekeepers' ignorance and should be held liable for gross negligence - apart from all the other things they are doing to destroy the planet.

[chickenanne]

I think people in general ARE aware of the dangers of resistance - to antibiotics for example - and are also aware of how resistance develops.

I doubt that there are many beeks who used/use pyrethroyds without understanding issues of resistance; but despite this there were beeks who removed strips before the treatment was complete, or left them in the hive too long, which is a great help to developing reisistance in mites! Possibly the residues in wax were not so well understood, but again many pyrethroyd-using beeks are perfectly well aware of this. There was no secret that resistant mites could occur, in the smae way that there's no secret that anti-biotic bacteria can occur, it's just that some people chose to ignore it as inconvenient.

 

I don't think the blame can be laid solely at Bayer's door as some kind of evil secret kept from beeks when resistance to antibiotics is taught to teenagers in school biology lessons.

 

IMO people used /use Apistan or Bayverol becuase it's simple and when first introduced, was reliable - no need to worry about temperature (eg thymol) no need to wait until there is absolutely no brood (eg a one-off oxalic treatment)... just bung in a strip after you've harvested the honey, and take it out again 6 (? not sure I don't use it) weeks later.

[pdcambs]

 

Most beekeepers would not have been aware of the fact that they were unwittingly selecting pyrethroid-resistant mites, but the company making the treatment - Bayer - were certainly very aware: they know exactly what happens when you expose an organism to low levels of a toxin over many years. They managed to make a nice profit out of beekeepers' ignorance and should be held liable for gross negligence - apart from all the other things they are doing to destroy the planet.

 

 

Here here.

 

I think you'll also find, that the whole idea that it is beekeepers poor application of the product, is not only not the root cause of resistance, as has been said here (It's mutation based resistance not tolerance survival resistance that is the problem), but also it was the manufacturers who spread the rumors it was the fault of beekeepers not the product in the first place. Still such disinformation is common within the marketing apparatus of large petrochemical/pharmaceutical companies, when the facts are likely to get in the way of sales/profit.

[pdcambs]

 

I don't think the blame can be laid solely at Bayer's door as some kind of evil secret kept from beeks when resistance to antibiotics is taught to teenagers in school biology lessons.

 

 

Bayer is well known to have falsified field date to the French government in attempts to hide it's responsibility for bee looses in the past and in order to gain /maintain product licensing, and their products were then banned by the French.

[chickenanne]

I'm not defending all Bayer's practices here: I'm well aware of their dubious business practices and prefer to take my hard-earned cash elsewhere.

However, I find it hard to believe that many people are unaware of the risk of resistance developing - it's widely reported and commented upon for anitmalarials, for antibiotics, and a whole heap of other bacteria/parasite killing chemicals. I'm not saying everyone has a deep understanding of how it works, but that the vast overwhelming majority of people do have a broad understanding. It isn't a secret, either Bayer's or anyone elses.

[Melbourne12]

It's a shame that so many otherwise informative debates get muddied by political views.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether their products are effective and meet the appropriate safety regulations.

 

Back on topic, our local BKA currently mandates the use of Apiguard on hives kept at the association apiary, and strongly recommends it for all members' hives.

[beesontoast]

It's a shame that so many otherwise informative debates get muddied by political views.

 

It would be naiive to ignore Bayer's track record in this context.

 

"The Bayer company then became part of IG Farben, a conglomerate of German chemical industries that formed a part of the financial core of the German Nazi regime. IG Farben owned 42.5% of the company that manufactured Zyklon B[citation needed], a chemical used in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and other extermination camps. During World War II, the company also extensively used slave labor in factories attached to large slave labor camps, notably the sub-camps of the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp[2]. When the Allies split IG Farben into several pieces after World War II for involvement in organized Nazi war crimes, Bayer reappeared as an individual business. The Bayer executive Fritz ter Meer, sentenced to seven years in prison by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, was made head of the supervisory board of Bayer in 1956, after his release."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer

 

Would you trust a company like that to tell the truth?

[Egluntyne]

 

Original subject =Varroa mite. :D

[pdcambs]

I'm not defending all Bayer's practices here: I'm well aware of their dubious business practices and prefer to take my hard-earned cash elsewhere.

However, I find it hard to believe that many people are unaware of the risk of resistance developing - it's widely reported and commented upon for anitmalarials, for antibiotics, and a whole heap of other bacteria/parasite killing chemicals. I'm not saying everyone has a deep understanding of how it works, but that the vast overwhelming majority of people do have a broad understanding. It isn't a secret, either Bayer's or anyone elses.

 

 

 

There is a big difference between resistance within a long lived animals like ourselves in regard to antimalerials or Tamiflu, where exposure to (or build up of) a substance causes a tolerance, and mutation driven resistance in short lived animals such as the Varroa mite.

 

It is not the case that Varroa resistance to Apistan was caused by misuse of the product be beekeepers, although such was claimed by the manufacturers and has been suggested here, rather a mutation in one mite, somewhere in the southwest of the UK, then spread. this is clearly demonstrable by the pattern of reported incidences of resistance as it spread, opposed to it popping up all over the UK in separate instances of resistance developing due to miss application of the treatment.