Natural Beekeeping Network

[Gary]

[Rupert]

Gary, I agree with all that you have said. My understanding of the piece of the qoute that you have highlighted, is that some bees seem to be able to tolerate the parasite better than was first thought. This by no means suggests that the Varroa mite is not dangerous. Alot of bees will succomb and colonies will perish, but the prime objective of a successful parasite is to make sure that your host does not die. If your host dies then so do you. It would appear that the evil parasite that is the AgriChem industry has not learnt this.

I fear that one of the greatest dangers caused by Varroa is that it creats a smokescreen and diverts attention away from scum like Bayer, Monsanto, Syngenta and their ilk.

Rupert
_________________
A cow on the rocks is not a bum steer

[Gareth]

In my view, Varroa is and continues to be a major threat. What I don't agree with is that we need nerve agents (aka 'miticides') to control them. My own experience suggests that 'soft' treatments can maintain a balance and others are working along the lines of natural selection (of a balance between mite and bee). Of course we will experience losses, and we shouldn't minimise the toughness of the wee beasty, but we don't need the insecticides.
_________________
Gareth

Other experience may lead to different conclusions. I live in a maritime climate with cool summers and wet winters.

[biobee]

What I was trying (apparently not very effectively) to convey by that statement is that Varroa destructor is not as big a threat to bees and beekeeping as people like the BBKA like to tell us, and as evidence I cite the fact that I have kept bees without the use of any miticides for five seasons now. If I was following the 'party line' I would be using thymol or oxalic acid, but I don't because my bees seem to manage without such 'help'.

I have used powdered sugar (sparingly) but no synthetic treatments, which tells me that the mites can be kept to manageable levels without pyrethroids or organophosphates and that bees do not all suddenly die from nosema or foulbrood without prophylactic doses of antibiotics.

I don't think this is a matter of regional differences - although no doubt there are some, in terms of the bees' current ability to fight their own battles with the mites - it's more a matter of a belief in the bees' ability to solve their own problems, given the time and conditions in which to do so.

I think most of us agree that the only long-term solution to Varroa is to raise bees that have the ability to defend themselves against the mite. The only way I can see to do that is to expose bees to mites in a controlled way, so they have the opportunity to 'learn' how to deal with them. So you can see Varroa not so much as a major problem, but as having the potential to strengthen the bees: just as a child exposed to a little dirt at an early age becomes less vulnerable to every passing bug because their immune system has learned how to fight them off.

If I treat with oxalic and my bees survive, what have I learned? Oxalic acid kills mites! But I already know that, so what's the point? What I want to know is, what do I have to do in the way of providing the right conditions for bees to solve their own problems: that is my on-going experiment.

BBKA and others will continue to bang the Varroa drum to distract attention from the greater threat to bees of a toxic agricultural system, against which they have no defence.

I hope that makes my meaning somewhat clearer - and, as always - feel free to disagree with my point of view.
_________________
The Barefoot Beekeeper
The podcast
Guide to Swarming and Swarm Management

[Gary]

First I was under the impression Graham White wrote it, none the less I agree with yu 100 % Phil but it could have stated more clearly the use of the Varroa as a scape goat rather than "not as bad a problem".

Then truth of the matter is all pollinating insects are being attacked on several different fronts. A pesticide application wipes out a colony. Viruses brought to epidemic levels by Varroa wipes out a colony. The only relation that can be made between the two is Mites built up a tolerance to pesticides. We made stronger mites and we make stronger pesticides.

The problems are equally leathal thats why the chem companies get away with using the Varroa mite as a scape goat!

[zaunreiter]

[biobee]

BTW - forgot to mention - that email went out to my 'Bee Alert' subscribers, and not as an 'official' FotB statement, although for some reason some people received it with the wrong header.
_________________
The Barefoot Beekeeper
The podcast
Guide to Swarming and Swarm Management

[Garret]

Correct me if I'm wrong!
I see what Phil was saying as promoting chemical free bee keeping. If no one is aware that it can be done why would they change? The other problem is that chemicals have been used far and wide for a long time now that I'm not sure we can tell which is really causing the most problem any more. Mites or in hive chemicals.
Trans-generationally these chemicals can cause serious damage. Even after the bees are taken off of them you may see the negitive effects for years.
_________________
I'm not as serious as I look!

[zaunreiter]

Garret,

I fully agree and might add: Don't forget the soils, which are depleted.

You cannot expect any living thing thrive in an unhealthy environment, caused by wastage, exploitation and erosion.

This is especially interesting, if you look into the microbes of the soils, plants and animals. They do the work, which makes life possible. Our abuse of soils shreds the whole life circle, especially the work of micorbes.

Even if you drain out all the pesticides, which are nasty!, and don't add any chems anymore, you still have to buildup humus. Microbes even influence genetics through epigenetic, through food actually, activating and inactivating genes.

Usually it needs 7 to 15 years to rebuild humus in a soil, if not centuries. It all starts with planting trees, because trees are a stable resource for humus buildup. If you plant useful trees, you even get massive crops from them to feed yourself. See: http://www.pfaf.org

I think it is most important to realize and recognize, that natural beekeeping works in a natural environment. In an industrial agriculture environment, this is most difficult to balance health.

A leading Bayer employee and researcher, who works on pesticides and honeybees, once said to me: The setting up of farming land/fields, the tilling of soil is a very big environmental catastrophe itself. (Of course he wanted to play down pesticides, but...).

Taking up the challenge of natural beekeeping also means planting trees. As a gardener, farmer, landscaper or as guerillia gardener (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_gardening), or simply by spreading seeds of trees whereever you go.

Sorry for the long posts and repeating the same over and over. I see the danger to focus on beekeeping issues without seeing the surrounding, which influences beekeeping.

Bernhard
_________________
~ ubi apis, ibi salus ~

(latin: where bees, there health)

[Gareth]

Bernhard

[Gary]

AH! Now I think we all got the big picture! This is a multi front battle with multi threats. The threat assessments are equal but need to be prioritized! without the environment in a healthy state of affairs no one else has a chance. The environment is the prime objective to defend no doubt, however you cannot drop any other defences along the perimeter you set up or you are vaurnerable to what will creep up behind you.

Everyone here has a valid position to defend and there is no doubt they all interrelate! This is our line of defense it is where we choose to take a stand! Now we have OUR perimeter and your back depends on me holding my part and being able to shift assets your way if needed and vice versa!

heres a little secret you probably do not even realize: Our enemies do not even consider us a threat YET!

They have not started playing dirty yet!

Just a soldiers way of analyzing a threat and forming a stragety!

Its been proven that a small well organized, well diciplined group could win aganist overwhelming odds! Just think what would happen if all the linked organizations at the the bottom of the letter joined forces well organized and diciplined!! That would be a threat to companies lyke Bayer!

Thanks for what everyones doing and thanks for listening.

Thanks Phil and Bernard don't get the wrong idea I'm not against you, I'm on the other side of the perimeter!

[Gary]

[Garret]

[quote="zaunreiter"]

[zaunreiter]

[Garret]

This happens through out nature. One example is deer on a small island with predators. Years when forage is good they will both multiply. Some years there is a drought and many deer will die of starvation and predation but nature always dictates the level of populations. It is a real balancing act. When the predator is too successful and have used their resources they no longer exist on the island.
This is not unique to just islands.
We have gone against nature because of our technology and have over populated the planet something will check us and that will be nature. We are making our planet very small!
_________________
I'm not as serious as I look!