Testing For Varroa Prior To Treatment

[yes2matt]

Hi Folks,

I'm extremely appreciative of all of the comments on this subject.

Even *treatment free* is a treatment. I read much of MB's writings on TF when I started keeping. I was here and on Beesource. My associates and club members were made up of a spectrum of developing practices.

There is a breaking point, regarding colony count, when testing and then treating and then testing again to see how effective the treatment worked is not practical nor cost effective.

There was always a statement made where *He has 100 colonies. If He looses 10 to varroa, he's lost 10% of his hives. If you have two colonies and loose only one, you've lost 50% of your holdings. If you loose two, you lost 100%.*

I'm concluding, over the years, that a breaking point may be about eight colonies. Nucs are not in this count. I think, at that point, the keeper is serious and regularly involved in the care of the colonies and in the activities necessary to maintain that number by splitting, swarm capture and maintenance, and nuc availability. That level of care, and knowledge, assures that the colony count will always be *about eight, more or less, and those invaluable nucs take up the slack.* You can *treat* however you want.

The hobbyist with only one or two colonies and limited knowledge and involvement is at a disadvantage.

Honey production runs the knife edge also. More colonies should generally yield more honey, even if the poundage from any single colony is sub-optimal.

Please continue the discussion. I'm regularly pointing this thread out to my club.

Sal

Sal it seems to me that testing for mites/300 bees is part of a holistic "programme" called Integrated Pest Management. And IPM has a whole philosophy behind it, and a process flow/logic to it, and a definite work load associated with the various tasks in the process.  And I'm not at all anti-academic, but you have to realize that the human culture of the academy where most of the IPM stuff is coming from is characterised by cheap/free labor with open schedules. "Kids these days" but I used to be there at 19 too.

And so an idealized philosophy/process that is originated in cheap labor with unconstrained time is going to have some characteristics which may/not mesh with your mentees. For reasons which are human. Working folks have constrained schedules, and time is dear. We don't always have three helpers with us in the yard to break up a task like measuring bees, washing them, counting mites, logging it, working the hive.   For a dude working solo, that's a LOT OF WORK.

And add that to the process flow of doing a LOT OF WORK to get information that can easily be deduced by pattern recognition.  It's late June, I just pulled honey. I ALREADY KNOW which of my colonies is struggling with either mites or virii or whatever. I can see it. I see it in the behavior, I see it in the broodnest, I see it in the delayed comb drawing. I see it in the honey super that should have been finished and another put on, but instead it's not finished yet.

In the club, the beeks that treat do so on a schedule, or if they're using temperature sensitive treatments, they combine their schedule of honey production, queen production, and weather forecast.  They don't do a count because THEY ALREADY KNOW their bees have mites over "threshold", they're not intending to breed resistant/therapeutic bees, and they have a production schedule to keep and personal human constraints.

So I think you should show your mentees the IPM ideal. Maybe they'll want to join that party. And you should show them the way you do it, holistically.

[Ben Framed]

"It's late June, I just pulled honey. I ALREADY KNOW which of my colonies is struggling with either mites or virii or whatever. I can see it. I see it in the behavior, I see it in the broodnest, I see it in the delayed comb drawing. I see it in the honey super that should have been finished and another put on, but instead it's not finished yet."

"They don't do a count because THEY ALREADY KNOW their bees have mites over "threshold", they're not intending to breed resistant/therapeutic bees, and they have a production schedule to keep and personal human constraints."

Good points Matt in my opinion...
Even so, doing random mite counts in a yard is not a bad idea. Remembering; even successful pros 'who recognize the symptoms' you describe, do so in order to 'help insure' their bees do not 'reach' that threshold. For an example; Bob Binnie, and "TheHoneyPump" whom I have great respect, be it they or their family, who 'also' make their living 'with' bees.

[yes2matt]

I'd be interested to hear how THP, Sal, others who actually regularly test for mite load are using the information. It is too expensive (labor and time) to gather data points that aren't part of a decision tree somehow. How are you using this expensive information to make decisions?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Occam]

I'd be interested to hear how THP, Sal, others who actually regularly test for mite load are using the information. It is too expensive (labor and time) to gather data points that aren't part of a decision tree somehow. How are you using this expensive information to make decisions?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Part of my curiosity as well. If one has a scheduled treatment plan in place regardless of the finding (unless I'm misunderstanding something here) then what's the point?

[The15thMember]

I'd be interested to hear how THP, Sal, others who actually regularly test for mite load are using the information. It is too expensive (labor and time) to gather data points that aren't part of a decision tree somehow. How are you using this expensive information to make decisions?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Part of my curiosity as well. If one has a scheduled treatment plan in place regardless of the finding (unless I'm misunderstanding something here) then what's the point?

I personally don't have a scheduled treatment plan, which I why I like to have the data, because the data is my trigger to treat.  I also test post-treatment (unless it's a mid-winter OAV) to be sure the treatment had the desired effect.   

[Occam]

That makes more sense to me then what I've understood many to do. It seems like may treat regardless of the count to keep it under control I guess. Not treating until you reach a certain threshold makes more sense, whatever threshold you pick.

[Ben Framed]

"yes2matt"
"It's late June, I just pulled honey. I ALREADY KNOW which of my colonies is struggling with either mites or virii or whatever. I can see it. I see it in the behavior, I see it in the broodnest, I see it in the delayed comb drawing. I see it in the honey super that should have been finished and another put on, but instead it's not finished yet."

"They don't do a count because THEY ALREADY KNOW their bees have mites over "threshold", they're not intending to breed resistant/therapeutic bees, and they have a production schedule to keep and personal human constraints."

Ben Framed
Good points Matt in my opinion...
Even so, doing random mite counts in a yard is not a bad idea. Remembering; even successful pros 'who recognize the symptoms' you describe, do so in order to 'help insure' their bees do not 'reach' that threshold. For an example; Bob Binnie, and "TheHoneyPump" whom I have great respect, be it they or their family, who 'also' make their living 'with' bees.

"yes2matt "
"I'd be interested to hear how THP, Sal, others who actually regularly test for mite load are using the information. It is too expensive (labor and time) to gather data points that aren't part of a decision tree somehow. How are you using this expensive information to make decisions? "

To be clear, I did not say TheHoneyPump regularly test, I said randomly. Neither did I suggest Bob Binnie test regularly either just in case that might have been assumed as well. It is my understanding from watching Bob Binne videos, he checks hives "randomly" in each yard during his 'time' or 'season if you will' of treatment... It would be nearly 'impossible' to test so many hives.

In case anyone might have missed it:
Back to TheHoneyPump; He 'clearly' states the times throughout the year when he treats in his area, and the time of year he recommends checking or testing, in the provided link above in reply 10 ..  He wrote that article with The15thMember in mind. Since she is reluctant to test her bees with the wash method, but chooses the sugar shake instead, he made exception to add the sugar shake method for her benefit and others who may choose that route. Even so he uses the wash method. 
Bob Binnie has a similar schedule, and also uses the wash method. I am thinking he treats with OAV in December to boot. If memory serves me correctly.


Edit:
I can not answer for them but I do 'realize' Mr Binnie is a professional beekeeper as is TheHoneyPumps family, you can add Ian Steppler to that number if you wish, of what I consider 'mega beekeepers'.

Isn't it only good stewardship on their part to know what is going on in their bee yards? I would suppose keeping notes for comparison 'for and from' all aspects of beekeeping, and not only mite counts, have proven to be 'very valuable' assets when ones livelihood 'is' "the bee business" and on the line.
For instance, if the tested hives are past the threshold or on the verge of passing that threshold at the allotted time of treatment, adjustments can be made or considered in their program, (now or in the future as needed), to address the problems accordingly. (a bee care takers road map if you will 😊). No doubt their desire is to 'never' have their bees 'reach' the obvious levels of distress which you described and look for, in your earlier post?   😊   Which is my desire as well.. 

I hope that helps.

Phillip

[NigelP]

"Thresholds"......who determines what that threshold level of varroa is and what is it's value?
My aim is keep varro levels so low they never reach the "threshold" value, whatever it is.
Just means I treat all hives annually.
Saves me a lot of time this way.

[Ben Framed]

"Thresholds"......who determines what that threshold level of varroa is and what is it's value?
My aim is keep varro levels so low they never reach the "threshold" value, whatever it is.
Just means I treat all hives annually.
Saves me a lot of time this way.

Nigel I am thinking it was Dr Samuel Ramseys' 'enthusiast', in depth, lecture in Ireland was the first time I heard of it. But my memory is not exactly clear. I might have heard of it earlier..
https://youtu.be/z2plL5NIRcw

From your post above, may I assume you do not test for mite counts anytime?

[NigelP]

From your post above, may I assume you do not test for mite counts anytime?

I used to put drop trays in when treating to make sure the treatment was working.  These days I just treat, as I know what I use is efficatious.
Takes seconds to add strips to hives and seconds to remove them 8 weeks later.
Job done.

[Ben Framed]

Thanks Nigel, for such a small creature they sure are a thorn in the side!!

Phillip

[Michael Bush]

>These days I just treat, as I know what I use is efficatious.

Actually you only know it was last time you checked.  I may work one year and not the next.  Resistance is not futile, but it is frustrating.  Neither Apistan nor Checkmite have worked here in Nebraska since the early 2000s.

[NigelP]

Which is why it is wise to not use the same treamtent for more than three consecutive years before using a different one.
Although some treamtents, like oxalic acid, affect mites along so many different pathways it is unlikely that resistance to it will ever form.

[Ben Framed]

Which is why it is wise to not use the same treamtent for more than three consecutive years before using a different one.
Although some treamtents, like oxalic acid, affect mites along so many different pathways it is unlikely that resistance to it will ever form.

Just because 'we' the individual beekeeper might not use the same treatment three years in a row, (if that is the time limit for resistance build up?) What cycle does our neighbor, our fellow countrymen practice in treatment? Plus; "even if rotated", doesn't the resistance not still persist and build with each years use? By using this commendable practice, are we guaranteed that mites will not prevail? If not, just more the reason for testing or checking for mites and doing mite counts? Especially for those who make their living with our friend and gift, the Honeybee...

As far as the organic Oxalic; my go to 'topper offer'; has its "shortcomings". We have discussed oxalic in depth here at beemaster as well as various organic Formic treatment methods.

 
Phillip

[Ben Framed]

>"These days I just treat, as I know what I use is efficatious."

"Michael Bush"
"Actually you only know it was last time you checked.  I may work one year and not the next.  Resistance is not futile, but it is frustrating." "Neither Apistan nor Checkmite have worked here in Nebraska since the early 2000s."

I agree Mr Bush...

Phillip

[Ben Framed]

The article laid out by TheHoneyPump and re-posted on this topic as a reminder, was excellent in my opinion. As he wrote, 'varroa carriers numerous viruses' and teaches how and what to look for, not only 'on' our bees but within our colonies frames.
The article placed with-in this topic featuring Dr Ramsey, also point out the many weapons varroa brings against our bee.
I am posting a link featuring a picture of the results of one of those viruses,  which was posted by ROBO some time ago.  "Deformed Wing Virus"


https://beemaster.com/forum/index.php?topic=23879.msg184861#msg184861

[NigelP]

, doesn't the resistance not still persist and build with each years use?
Phillip

Resistance will only be maintained if the same miticide is constantly used that it has become resistant to.  Resistance is quickly lost if the "resistant" agent is not present as it's energetically and genetically expensive for any organism to maintain resistance to something that is not present in it's environment and ergo there is no requirement to do so. Which is why changes are important. Three years is the mantra, but it could easily be 4 or 5. But changing every three years seems to work okay.

Still not had anyone clarify what the threshhold level for mites is before treatment is needed?

[Michael Bush]

I only used Apistan (Fluvalinate) once.  The mites were totally resistant already and apparently (I found after some research) had been in this area for several years.  I'm pretty sure they still are.  Checkmite quit working shortly after and as far as I can find out still doesn't work.  Maybe if you could coordinate with all the beekeepers in the area to rotate the same ones that might work.  If I was going to treat (which I have not done at all for more than two decades) I would put a sticky board on and count mites before, during and after.

[Ben Framed]

, doesn't the resistance not still persist and build with each years use?
Phillip

Resistance will only be maintained if the same miticide is constantly used that it has become resistant to.  Resistance is quickly lost if the "resistant" agent is not present as it's energetically and genetically expensive for any organism to maintain resistance to something that is not present in it's environment and ergo there is no requirement to do so. Which is why changes are important. Three years is the mantra, but it could easily be 4 or 5. But changing every three years seems to work okay.

Still not had anyone clarify what the threshhold level for mites is before treatment is needed?

You may be right but If that's the case I have a question; If that is the case, and resistance is build against products as Mr Bush described in this entire State, couldn't we simply wait a year, or two, or three, bringing thing back to square one and normal?  In other words if the good folks of Nebraska simply stopped using the miticide products Mr Bush described, then soon the same products would once again be just as effective as in the beginning?
"I don't know about that." I really don't know enough about miticide buildup to say much more lol... I have not studied it enough...

The threshold which is pretty much accepted among the scientific community is 2 to 5 mites per 100 adult bees. This number was reached and concluded by many Universities and research centers. Some say less. One University; Pennsylvania State University says 2 mites per 100 adult bees.

Nigel have you had a chance to take in the documentary placed in reply#48? If not, I highly recommend it.

Phillip

[Ben Framed]

I only used Apistan (Fluvalinate) once.  The mites were totally resistant already and apparently (I found after some research) had been in this area for several years.  I'm pretty sure they still are.  Checkmite quit working shortly after and as far as I can find out still doesn't work. Maybe if you could coordinate with all the beekeepers in the area to rotate the same ones that might work.  If I was going to treat (which I have not done at all for more than two decades) I would put a sticky board on and count mites before, during and after.

That has been my concern as well. The resistance is already there or soon will be, thus testing...

But as you say; "Maybe if you could coordinate with all the beekeepers in the area to rotate the same ones that might work."

I would like to know the answer to that as well, I do not wish to sound like a doubting Thomas but one resistance has been built...

Mr Bush since you don't treat, do you still like to know where your hardy bees 'are', concerning mites?

Phillip