1 / 35

Economic Viability of a Varroa IPM System

Economic Viability of a Varroa IPM System. Keith S. Delaplane, James D. Ellis University of Georgia www.ent.uga.edu/bees. Concluded Colonies with resistant queens and screen bottoms tend to:. Have fewer mites, especially at seasons when mite depredation is most severe,

jadzia
Download Presentation

Economic Viability of a Varroa IPM System

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Economic Viability of a Varroa IPM System Keith S. Delaplane, James D. Ellis University of Georgia www.ent.uga.edu/bees

  2. ConcludedColonies with resistant queens and screen bottoms tend to: • Have fewer mites, especially at seasons when mite depredation is most severe, • Have delayed onset of economic threshold.

  3. . . . and detectedFavorable compensatory interactions: • Between resistant queens and screens, • Between queens and screens and non-isolated apiaries.

  4. Design

  5. Design • 2 years

  6. Design • 2 years • 6 beekeeper collaborators

  7. Design • 2 years • 6 beekeeper collaborators • 21-30 colonies each

  8. Design • 2 years • 6 beekeeper collaborators • 21-30 colonies each • 3 treatments within apiary

  9. Design • 2 years • 6 beekeeper collaborators • 21-30 colonies each • 3 treatments within apiary • chemical: Feb and Aug chemical

  10. Design • 2 years • 6 beekeeper collaborators • 21-30 colonies each • 3 treatments within apiary • chemical: Feb and Aug chemical • IPM: bottom screen + Russian 

  11. Design • 2 years • 6 beekeeper collaborators • 21-30 colonies each • 3 treatments within apiary • chemical: Feb and Aug chemical • IPM: bottom screen + Russian  • Control: no chemical or IPM, non-selected 

  12. Design • Monitored: • Mite fall • Onset of threshold • Honey yield • Time spent working colonies • Queen loss (replaced as found)

  13. 2005 2006 Excluding colonies treatment threshold

  14. screens 31.5 Colony work

  15. ConclusionsCompared to control colonies or chemical colonies, IPM colonies:

  16. ConclusionsCompared to control colonies or chemical colonies, IPM colonies: • Compared favorably for average mite levels,

  17. ConclusionsCompared to control colonies or chemical colonies, IPM colonies: • Compared favorably for average mite levels, • Compared favorably for onset of threshold,

  18. ConclusionsCompared to control colonies or chemical colonies, IPM colonies: • Had highest honey production,

  19. ConclusionsCompared to control colonies or chemical colonies, IPM colonies: • Had highest honey production, • Had highest total work hours,

  20. ConclusionsCompared to control colonies or chemical colonies, IPM colonies: • Had highest honey production, • Had highest total work hours, • Fewest colony deaths, and

  21. ConclusionsCompared to control colonies or chemical colonies, IPM colonies: • Lowest queen replacement rate.

More Related