From guya@ncatfyv.uark.eduFri May 24 21:46:45 1996
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 14:56:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Ames <guya@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
To: Ronald Nigh <danamex@mail.internet.com.mx>
Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Varroa mite control

> 
> Dear Sanet users,
> 
> Is anyone working on a non-chemical approach to varroa mite control for
> honey production.??? So far two insecticides have had to be "retired" from
> use due to toxic residues in the honey. Much of the little literature we've
> been able to find seems to assume that insecticides are the only control.
> Have there been any results on possible biological control agents,
> management practices or other approaches? Thanks.
> Ronald Nigh
> Dana Association
> Mexico
> danamex@mail.internet.com.mx
> 
> 
Nicholas Calderone (Bee Research Lab, USDA-ARS, Bldg. 476, 
Beltsville Agri. Res. Ctr. East, Beltsville, MD 20705) and 
Marla Spivak have found that a combination of 75% thymol, 18% 
eucalyptus, 3.5% L-menthol, and 3.5% camphor is "highly
effective in controlling V. jacobsoni.  Two applications 
of test material resulted in an average mite mortality of
96.7%."  However, thymol, itself, can be stressful to bee
colonies, so Calderone cautions that further research is necessary
to fine tune the recommendations according to conditions, size
of hize, severity of mite problem, etc.

Citation:     
Calderone, Nicholas and Marla Spivak.  1995.  Plant extracts
for control of the parasitic mite Varroa jacobsoni (Acari:
Varroidae) in colonies of the western honey bee (Hymenoptera:
Apidae).  Journal of Economic Entomology.  Vol. 88.  No. 5.
pp. 1211-1215.

(You'll probably want to consult this article for the methods
section to see how they "delivered" the thymol blend to the hive
or write Dr. Calderone.)
 
eucalyptus oil, menthol, camphor, and linalool

From hansonde@ccmail.orst.eduMon May 27 19:00:50 1996
Date: Mon, 27 May 96 09:02:52 PST
From: "D. Eric Hanson" <hansonde@ccmail.orst.edu>
Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Varroa heresies

On May 27 you wrote:
>  Anyway instead of feeding, drenching and dosing bees with highly 
>     commendably natural products, which incidentally continue the same 
>     treat the symptoms mentality, why not surround the beehives with plant 
>     producing those compounds so that the bees can harvest them 
>     themselves? To simple and cheap I suppose.
>In New Zealand we have many very healthy wild colonies. The stress of 
>     feeding with syrup and excessive harvesting does make commercial hives 
>     susceptible to a wide range of diseases, but that is also true of 
>     sheep, cattle, poultry, pigs etc.. etc.. 
>     
     
Just to show you how unorthodox your viewpoint is, consider this paragraph 
from the April issue of APIS, the Florida Extension Service Bee Newsletter 
by M.T. Sanford:
     
>     It is clear that a new kind of honey bee management is 
>emerging from the parasitizing effects of the Varroa bee mite. 
>Two kinds of beekeepers can now be identified; those with 
>experience "before Varroa," and those who began apiculture "after 
>Varroa."   Persons in the latter category cannot appreciate the 
>relative laissez-faire beekeeping possible in the past.  This 
>state of affairs is also being reflected in the bees themselves. 
>No longer able to exist in large numbers in the wild, these 
>insects are being pushed toward a greater reliance on humans that 
>can only be called "domestication.
?!!!
However, I think that your idea of planting some of the plants whose 
botanical preparations have been found effective in the vicinity of hives is 
a good idea. I also subscirbe to the the notion that general ecosistema 
degradation (inadvertant or deliberate--remember I live in a "low-intensity 
conflict" zone) is behind many of our pest and disease problems*. Or as 
Fukuoka taught us, must of the problems of agriculture have their root in 
agricultural practices themselves. Regards, Ron.
Ronald Nigh
Dana Association
Mexico
danamex@mail.internet.com.mx
     
     *Good point!  This degradation is the "manifest destiny" of food and 
     fibre production systems that rely on simplifying ecosystems both 
     spatially and temporally.  Most agricultural systems in the 
     "developed" countries maintain communities in an annual state of 
     disturbance.  This is not bad for the short-term, ala shifting 
     agriculture, but does have serious consequences over 50 years.  
     Allowing succession to enable a community to develop and recover after 
     a short period of intensive disturbances may be a viable alternative. 
     Forestry in the US is also adopting this agricultural paradigm of 
     relatively short series disturbances.  It to will similar 
     consequences, I suspect, but because of the time scale involved, they 
     will take much longer to appear and be far more catastrophic when they 
     do so.
     
TTFN - Eric Hanson
Dept. of Forest Science 
Oregon State University 
Corvallis, OR, USA 97331
(541) 737-6083
hansonde@ccmail.orst.edu

