Subject: varoa removing without use of pesticides

From: [email-masked] (Andy Nachbaur)
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 14:50:00 GMT

----------------------------------------
IJ<>From: Ivo Jakop <[email-masked]>
  <>Date:         Sun, 30 Apr 1995 12:38:28 +0200
  <>Subject:      varoa removing without use of pesticides

IJ<>US Magazin Science published in 1989 a report prepared by a french
  <>scientist group working in Labs for neurobiology in Bures-sur-Yvette. As
  <>explained in the report they use Ethylpalmitat and Methyllinolenat as
  <>active substances to allure varoa into a trap and subsequently eliminate
  <>them from the hive.
  <>The cheap and undengerous (for bees and human) substance, its
  <>uncomplicated application looked very attractive and promissing.
  <>Since then I never heared any further news on development of this
  <>approach to get ride of varoa.Does somebody of the BEELIST community has
  <>perhaps more up-to-dayt or fresh info?

IJ<>Ivo Jakop, Celje, Rep.of Slovenia

Hello Ivo,

   I just received a video of a talk given by Dr. H. Shiminouki a
few week's ago and he talks about the USDA doing this kind of research.
He did not mention these chemical's by name, but I assume they will be
looking at them. His vision was some kind of trap, like a "varroa
motel", they would check in and never check out.

   I am a beekeeper, in Central California, which is on the Left Coast
of the US. I have lost an increasing number of hives over the last 25
years even before the Varroa was first found. I am still having losses,
last year was real bad with several yards of over 200 hives dieing out
all at once, at different time's of the year. The only difference I have
seen in this loss is that today it is greater, and if the yard is
infected with Varroa the last bee's to die will have Varroa. I have
suspected the real killer is a virus years before any mites were found
in the US. Nobody in the US was interested and what little testing for
virus that was done was actually sent abroad, so little practical
experience working with bee's and virus was done.

Shiminouki also outline in his talk the work they have at long last
started with bee virus. They are years behind and I don't expect
anything soon, but there is alway's hope and maybe with the different
talent's of the virologist at work something will develop.

   There approach, as I see it, to date on the mass loss of bee's which
may not be general in the US, but is reported from many different areas
depending on the year, including the feral populations, is to give the
post morton symptom's a new name "PMS", now BPMS, stands for Post Mite
Syndrome. I my opinion this is pure BS (stands for Bull Shit) and not BS
(bee science), but I am only a beekeeper who has watched his own bee's
for 40+ years. The trouble with the GI science is that they are trying
to identify a pathogen after the subject is dead and this leads to more
confusion then useful solutions. The symptom's reported by the keeper's
of bee's today are NO different then they symptom's reported by
beekeepers 80 year's ago with the addition of mites and a new name for
hives that are dead. We get only new names every ten years or so and
still watch the bee's die, alone in the field with only the beekeeper as
witness. But that is no wonder since the so called Bee Lab's are not
located in any of the major beekeeping areas and no one can expect a
well paid bee scientist to live in some God forsaken farm area just to
document the last day's of a bee hive. They would have to travel 50
miles to take a coffee break or find a flush toilet and might see the
sun rise and set on the job. This is no longer the American way, we have
progressed to the new bureaucratic way's. Forty hour's a week with full
benefits and plenty of time to think about it on the job, PMS is the
written proof. I am not a scientist only a tired old beekeeper, but I
wrote a paper in 1989 that was presented to the American Beekeepers
Association that is no better or worse then the so called information on
BPMS. I ran my text through a computer program that indicated it was
written by someone with a 12th grade education, I won't embarrass anyone
with what the same program reported the USDA PMS paper to be, I thought
my own should have rated higher to. The beekeeper's and taxpayer's of
the United States should not have to pay for these kind of report's or
the research to do them. Any high school biology teacher or interested
student could do as well. In my opinion they are only hype and PR and
are self serving to the agency involved.

  I want to know what is going on and I don't want to find it out from
some dusty chemical sale's person who's company had inside information
so his company to could use that information to make some big buck's
because it's better then a few beekeeper's misusing the same information
to save their bee's. If this is the way it is, or is going to be then I
will re-examine my position on supporting any beekeeping research by the
government. If the benefits of USDA research on Varroa mite to date is
going to the manufactures of the products to control them let the
manufacture pay for the research at his own lab. It is evident that what
research they are doing they have NOT shared with the public or USDA,
or we would be able to produce our own strips or formulation's out of
whatever material's at a fraction of the cost beekeeper's now pay. A
few pennies of active material incorporated in a low cost carrier should
not cost more the a few pennies. It's no wonder beekeeper's around the
world are using other methods not approved by governments, when
governments, science and regulatory agency's are one in the same and work
hand in hand with the chemical companies. What kind of science can one
produce if the scientist wares two hats, and one of those hat's is that
of a politician who bends in the wind's, not the wind's of change but
the wind's of strength..the strong wind's seldom come from the
beekeeper's. The proof is that there are other products, materials, and
chemicals, tested by many that we could be using, yet they can not be
used because of bureaucratic red tape.

   It is the easy way out to give the same symptom's of dead bee hives
a new name each time it show's up in a different area or different year.
This is not science but the GI name game and has become part of the
problem and not part of the solution. Beekeeper's are losing their bee's
they need to know from what and what to do to prevent that loss, and are
not interested in going around and telling the world that our losses
fit the symptoms of bPMS according to the best scientific minds in the
US government.

   I do support beekeeping research and have worked to see it
enlarged and continued, and I will continue to do so, but I must admit
it is easy to see why Bee Research in the USA may be in trouble. And
I don't believe for a minute it is because beekeeper's have not shown
the interest in bee research. If anything it the fact that the research
lab's are not able to define their own role's to fill a public need and
mostly operate in a climate of political uncertainties. Especially so in
the light that so many hobby and small beekeepers have followed the
"best" advice and recommendation's of the government to keep their bee's
healthy only to have them die anyway. These are not the dumb people that
some would make them out to be, and in reviewing the tape of Dr.
Shiminuki, any can see that discussion of "positive stress" factor's is
only a language trap as the combination of words fly's in the face of
the real world. Especially since on the whole the best USDA
recommendation's are to control one or more of the stress's from a list
of many. Beekeeper's have been doing that since I have been around and
are still losing bee's.

   I believe that we in the US have had our head's held in the
sand for too long and if we want to have healthy bee's we better be
looking for areas in the world that have healthy bee's or bee's that
survive to spite all known problems and bring in that stock and the
information on how it is being used by beekeepers, to add to our own
tired gene pool or we risk losings it all in a short time. The few
introduction's so far have added nothing to the big picture, and more
then that is coming in ala natural through our boarder's which have been
quarantine against bee's for generations and most of that which could be
used is being destroyed. To think that we can change what we have by one
or two regulated introduction's in a lifetime is just plain poor
thinking and can not be demonstrated at any level in the field. I have
tried much of the so called improved commercial stock available and they
all die just as dead as the natural stock. There is no practical
difference between any of the bee's available today in the US outside of
color and the quality that comes with good rearing conditions and bee
breeder experience. Some people have a talent and are able to apply it
in the right rearing areas, other's try and fail. All have some
failures...

   I would very much like to hear if you know of any large scale loss
of bee's in your area, and if these losses have continued or have
more or less come and gone or have continued or increased?  Does not
have to be in total number's of hives, but I am interested in total bee
yard's that die out in spite of the efforts of the beekeeper, minimal or
not. Feral population's count's of many year's would be useful. To count
them now or study them now is interesting and of great value, but the
horse has long left the barn.

                               ttul Andy-
                               [email-masked]

BTW  For the record I have yet to treat a hive for Varroa and do not
     look forward to treating hives for Varroa or any other mite. If
     that day comes that I have to get on the pesticide tread mill
     to be a keeper of bee's all will know my day has come and gone as
     a beekeeper. Some will say I have reach that point.

     "Pesticides may have been the final solution in 1940, God
     forbid they become the final solution to keeping my own bee's
     healthy."

(c)Permission to reproduce, granted.
Opinion's are not necessarily facts.