Survey Shines Light on Beekeepers’ Efforts to Manage Varroa Mites
With the Varroa destructor mite a pernicious pest of managed honey bee colonies across North America, beekeepers have a variety of control methods to choose from to reduce the mites’ impact on their hives. Which ones do they most prefer?
To answer that question, researchers at the University of Maryland and the Bee Informed Partnership analyzed four years of data from surveys that asked beekeepers about their Varroa-management methods. Their findings, reported in a new study published in April in the Journal of Economic Entomology, highlight a wide variety of combinations of methods used and indicate a lack of any perceived “silver bullet” option for controlling Varroa mites.
Among the range of practices, though, some patterns emerged, says Ariela Haber, Ph.D., lead author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Maryland at the time it was conducted. (Haber is now a postdoctoral researcher at the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service.) For instance, 89 percent of large-scale beekeepers (managing 50 or more colonies) said they use chemical varroacides, while 61 percent of small-scale beekeepers said they did. And, while about half of large-scale beekeepers said they use nonchemical methods (either exclusively or in combination with varroacides), about three-quarters of small-scale beekeepers said they use them.
Haber says these insights into use of Varroa-management methods “take into account important considerations such as affordability and logistical constraints associated with different practices. Thus, the findings can inform future experiments that directly test the efficacy of different Varroa management practices that beekeepers can realistically use.”
The survey data, which Haber analyzed with University of Maryland colleagues Nathalie Steinhauer and Dennis vanEngelsdorp, Ph.D., covered nearly 19,000 responses over a four-year period, asking beekeepers about their use Varroa-management methods among the bevy of options currently available:
|Varroa control methods|
|Category||Type||Specific product or practice|
|Organic acid||Hop oil|
|Nonchemical||Biotechnical||Drone brood removal|
|Physical||Screened bottom boards|
|Brood interruption||Splitting colonies|
Beekeepers were also asked about colony losses. Across all types of beekeeping operations, use of varroacides was associated with lower colony loss, with amitraz associated with better colony survival than all other varroacides. Meanwhile, among nonchemical methods, splitting colonies was associated with the lowest levels of colony loss, “although our results suggest that nonchemical practices have limited success as stand-alone controls,” the authors note in their report. The survey did not ask about intensity of Varroa infestations or other factors that can influence colony survival, so Haber and colleagues stress that the results are only observational and shouldn’t be interpreted to infer causal links between Varroa-management methods and colony survival rates.
The primacy of chemical management methods, however, indicates the ongoing challenge beekeepers face in managing Varroa in their honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. Repeated use of varroacides has led to Varroa populations evolving resistance to at least two previously effective products. “Even though evidence from our study and from other studies suggests that chemical treatments tend to be more effective than nonchemical practices for controlling Varroa, we should be cautious in interpreting the results of any varroacide efficacy study and in making recommendations to beekeepers, as it is unlikely that any chemical control will be effective in the long term,” Haber says.
More broadly, Haber says she sees the intensive operations of managed honey bee pollination services in agriculture as an environment with multiple factors contributing to honey bee colony losses, such as low-quality pollen diets in monoculture crops to high-density colonies. “This suggests that honey bee colonies in the U.S. will be vulnerable—to problems we have already seen as well as new, unforeseen problems—as long as we keep our current system in place,” she says.
“Use of Chemical and Nonchemical Methods for the Control of Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) and Associated Winter Colony Losses in U.S. Beekeeping Operations”
Journal of Economic Entomology
Our findings on varroa treatment with cardboard strips soaked into a solution of Oxalic Acid/Glycerine makes varroa problem a step of the beekeeping history for many commercial and hobby beekeeping farms. The mixing of 600g of OA into 1000 g of glycerine to soak 80 cardboard strips 1,5 mm tick, 30 mm whide and 350 mm long placing 4 of them on each Langstroth brood chamber it is a State-of-the-Art technology for all beekeepers around the world. It is an easy and cheap method with 60 days of efficacy.
On the frames or slide in on the bottom board
You can also find more info through http://scientificbeekeeping.com/extended-release-oxalic-acid-progress-report/
it works by contact then you need to fold each strip and hang them of frames 2, 4, 6 and 8 then half strip will be present in each bee corridor.
If you work with more deep chambers than Langstroth (for example Layens) it could be better to work with a more long strips 50 to 70 cm long.
Usually grey cardboard is available in 100 cm by 70 cm foils. then you can cut strips of 35 cm (like I use) or 50 cm or 70 cm long.