# What is Maverick?



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

In discussions with other beekeepers, maverick has been mentioned several times. But those using it have been reluctant with some information. I guess they are using something "off-label". Can someone help me out for my own education.

What is it?
What labels(s) does it sell by?
How is it applied?
Why is it not on the market for mites?
It has been (to my knowledge), so why is it no longer?
Whats the story, or other information you could share?
My job is not as a pesticide enforcer, but I would like to know of any dangers in handling, and how would I know what to look for while inside another beekeepers hive. Smell, application procedure, or other things that would clue me into something. And would rubber gloves(med type) help in handling frames and comb? 
Please feel free to contact me directly if desired. mikeandida at cs . com

Thank you.


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

I remember reading about it earlier. Look here:
http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=002126#000008


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>What is it?

synthetic pyrethrin

>What labels(s) does it sell by?

I've only heard Mavrik, but I'm sure there are other pyrethrins available. I have no idea what they are called or how they would work on Varroa.

>How is it applied?

http://apis.ifas.ufl.edu/apis94/APJAN94.HTM 
http://apis.ifas.ufl.edu/apis99/pdf/feb_ap99.pdf#search='maverik%20insecticide'
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/beekeeping/oldnews.htm

(search on Mavrik)


>Why is it not on the market for mites?

You mean Varroa? I don't know.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Greetings BjornBee . . .

On Oct 20, 1987, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS) approved (Sec 18, Crisis exemption) plywood strips soaked w/ Mavrik or Spur (fluvalinate) for DETECTION of Varroa.

On Dec 30, 1987, a section 18 special exemption approved plywood soaked w/ Mavrik or Spur as TREATMENT.

Mar 21, 1988 - Use of Mavrik was RESCINDED. Replaced by Apistan.

For MSDS sheet (Mavrik Aquaflow) see:
http://www.mavrikaquaflow.com/pdf/MSDS-MavrikAquaflow.pdf 

For Label info see:
http://www.mavrikaquaflow.com/pdf/MavrikSpecLabel.pdf


----------



## Randy Bagrowski (Jan 29, 2002)

I know a beekeeper that still uses the stuff. You can buy it at most of the bigger garden supply places. He dilutes it with water and if I remember right would soak some cardboard strips in the solution then put them into the hive. It is the exact same chemical as Apistan


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

How does that beekeeper determine if he is giving his bees the right dosage of the 'same chemical as Apistan' by using cardboard strips?


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

Heres some info that was cut and pasted from www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests-diseases/animals/varroa/guidelines/control-of-varroa-guide.pdf


7.3 Creating resistant varroa in the laboratory

The pesticides used for varroa control have been selected because they kill most or all varroa when the recommended dosage and usage pattern is followed. Before government authorities allow a pesticide to be sold, scientific studies must be carried out to show that the chemical is highly effective in killing mites.
However, by exposing varroa to very low concentrations of the pesticide, scientists have shown that it is possible to select for mites that show some resistance to the chemical.
The varroa might have a slightly thicker cuticle that protects them from the pesticide for slightly longer, or they might have enzymes that can break down some of the pesticide before it causes damage.
Scientists have shown that by keeping the varroa in constant contact with low concentrations of the pesticide, only mites with the resistance are likely to breed. Slowly increasing the concentration of the pesticide will result in the selection of more and more resistant mites until mites are selected that are resistant to the full strength of the pesticide.

7.4 How beekeepers have created resistant varroa

Beekeepers have unwittingly created resistant varroa in a very similar manner to the way scientists do it in the laboratory.

7.4.1 Use of Mavrik

Apistan strips contain the pesticide fluvalinate. The strips are formulated to slowly release fluvalinate at a constant rate for a given period of time to control varroa. The strips should be removed after this time. The strips are expensive, however, and it didnt take beekeepers overseas very long to discover that Mavrik, a common horticultural spray, also 
contains fluvalinate and is a fraction of the cost of Apistan strips (Mavrikis a bulk liquid rather than an expensive, slow-release plastic strip). Beekeepers found that pieces of cardboard dipped in a very weak Mavrik solution were very effective at controlling varroa in beehives.
However, because Mavrik dissipates quickly (i.e., it is not in a slow-release strip), using Mavrik on cardboard resulted in varroa being exposed to lower concentrations of fluvalinate than with Apistan. Beekeepers found that they had to use increasingly more concentrated Mavrik solutions until not even 100% Mavrik was giving good control. Worse still, because Apistan also contains fluvalinate, Apistan was now also ineffective against
the resistant mites. Use of Mavrik to control varroa has also been implicated in findings of fluvalinate residues in honey


----------



## Randy Bagrowski (Jan 29, 2002)

Its not that hard. Look at the % active ingredient in Maverick and dilute down to the same % found in Apistan. Getting the right # of carboard strips to soak up ALL of the Maverick is another thing... more of a crap shoot I would guess.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> more of a crap shoot I would guess.


that would be my guess, too...


----------



## jalal (Sep 2, 2004)

over time the cardboard loses its bang and produces a smaller dosage that the mites can tolerate already naturally and make them even more immune?

what about 100% mavrik, how long would it stay in the rank of a strip?


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>what about 100% mavrik..

sure, that would work. just pull the top off your hive and pour Mavrik directly out of the container right down into the hive. that will kill those little bastards.


----------



## jalal (Sep 2, 2004)

yum.


----------



## crownhoney (Oct 26, 2002)

Mavrik is the same as Apistan. But, it is illegal to use because it's not labeled for use on honey bees. The Mavrik brand is labeled for use in green houses I think. And using it on bees could lead to some fines from the EPA. If ya'll talk about it, don't use any beekeepers names that ya'll know use it.

JT


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

While both Mavrik and Apistan contain the same chemical fluvalinate, Mavrik and Apistan are not the same. Apistan strips "are formulated to slowly release fluvalinate at a constant rate for a given period of time to control varroa." How can the release rate be controlled using plywood strips, cardboard strips, blue shop towels, and the like?


----------



## Randy Bagrowski (Jan 29, 2002)

I don't think that most beekeepers using Mavrik are concerned about release rate. I think they look at the price of Apistan and figure that they can get(from Mavrik) twice as much of the active ingredient for half the price! From what I was told its mostly commercial beekeepers using it. Its real convenient for them to just drop in some towels, cardboard etc soaked with Maverik and let the bees chew and remove the stuff, no return visit from the beekeeper. I would guess that its probably not being used as much because of most colonies being resistant to Apistan. There are those however that would probably double up or triple the dose figuring "more is better"


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

It's being used and in a fogger. Guess about the rate of release there!

Dickm


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

It is one of beekeeping's 'dirty little secrets' that most would prefer that it not even be brought up. 

>most colonies being resistant to Apistan

Any idea why that has occurred?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Let me make a guess! A few brain surgeons soaked some rags in it. Had no concept of the relationship of dosage and release due to concentration. After a short period due to a fast release rate the rags started giving sublethal doses and the varroa, not being killed, developed resitance. Am I close?


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Time for my little rant :>)))

First, Mavrik is not designed to kill mites. It's a pesticide designed for the feedlot. A beekeeper has to lie to get. Lie to use it. And Lie when it comes to his own honey's integrity. Isn't it strange how loud most beekeepers yell 'label!, label!' when others, in agriculture or public health, spray pesticides to protect their specific interests and damage the beekeepers. But when the beekeepers interests are threatened, some are maveriks and resort to the same tactics. They certianly wouldn't be getting any gold stars for their behavior.

Second, anyone wonder why the rest of the world is pushing for verifiable honey purity standards? American beekeepers are quick to point the finger at imported honey and declare it 'unfit'. Yet, many of those countries are cleaning up their act and their honey. Most American beekeepers are strangely silent concerning this, as evidenced by the lack of interest this topic has received when introduced at the Honey Board. And American honey has been banned from areas of the world where purity standards are measured and enforced. Anyone wonder why? Could there be a descrepancy between what is printed on the label and what is put in the jar?

Finally, anyone still spraying, dipping, or fuming pesticides just doesn't get the message most beekeepers learned the hard way over the last 20 years. The pesticide treadmill goes nowhere.

Just visit any of the heavily commercialized beekeeping areas like Ca or Fl where beekeepers have just about sprayed, dipped or fumed every barnyard chemical available for decades. Most of those beekeepers are doing other things, now, like driving trucks or running auto parts stores. But they will tell you how they tried everything to keep their hives alive/productive and ultimately failed.

Honey has been regarded as superior to other sweeters because of its perceived health benefits. It's a cultural heritage brought here from other parts of the world. Most of those perceived benefits are going to be sorely tested, both in the lab and in the culture, in the near future. American youth just don't have the agricultural base that we did. Most American youth have never even seen a real farm! Ketchup can be purple or green or blue! Food is manufactured not grown for this generation!

How will honey fit in, expecially if it can't meet standard food processing quality, let alone if it's contaiminated with pesticides?

What do you think?

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Well put Dennis! I agree down the line. I would however, not call someone who uses Maverik a beekeeper.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I must confess, that at one time, I thought is was necessary, even prudent, to treat a hive with pesticides in order to save it. I followed the best advice/research that was available. I wanted to do the best I could for the bees.

Yep, I've tested it all. I fumed some, sprayed some, dusted some with all kinds stuff, including some pesticides, fgmo, essential oils, organic acids, natural pesticides (tree oils), grape fruit leaves, etc.

I don't fault anyone who has the best interest of their bees at heart. It's just that now, so much more information/experience is available than was available nearly two decades ago. That's when Maverik and Tactik were king.

I've learned the hard way. But there's no need for others to repeat that experience. I hope that they can build on what I and others have learned and do even a better job than we have done.

Pesticides can seem like an easy fix. But that fix can have a very heavy economic and emotional cost when all that contaiminated equipment gets hauled to the dump. And that's what will happen when a beekeeper compares bees that are kept in uncontaiminated equipment/broodnest with those that aren't.

For a commercial guy who must treat to stay in business, check out the organic acids. My favorite is oxalic. It has none of the side effects that formic has and is much easier to handle.

For a beekeeper with just a few hives, sucrocide or powdered sugar dusting would be very easy to use and safely store.

For a beekeeper who doesn't want to treat at all, try natural comb or small cell. It's alot more work but can be very satisfying.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

> "I think they look at the price of Apistan and figure that they can get(from Mavrik) twice as much of the active ingredient for half the price!"


That kind of economics fails when the public learns to equate honey with fluvinate contamination. It won't matter what kind of mite treatment your are using then, unless you can jump through the hoops of an organic label, your price per pound is going to be way low. How often do we see short term economics fail? How often does it harm public health and well being, in additon to the particular business in question?

Thanks for the reality check Dennis!


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Now for another reality check. Even the as per label use of Apistan & checkmite plus has (and still is) contaminated comb. Presentations by the Beltsville Bee Lab as far back as 2002 (with slides) explained the problem. 
In my opinion the makers knew the problem would happen but instead of putting the focus on brood comb contamination chose to focus on the small ppb of coumaphos or fluvalinate the strips would put in honey.
In 1979 Bayer corp took out a patent to remove coumaphos from beeswax. Bayer has wanted such a high price for the process (simple but under patent) that no foundation manufacturer has bought the rights.

L. Cutts (ret. Florida head of apiary inspection) made a statement at a ABF meeting I attended which really hit home with me. He said he compared the number of Apistan & Checkmite strips sold in the U.S. to the number of beekeepers in the U.S.
"What illegal methods are 95% using?".

Terry Brown (Brown's Bee Australia) commented to me when he visited a couple months ago.
" I wonder why all the problems with varroa in the U.S.. I have not seen so many problems with commercial beekeepers keeping their hives alive in my travels to other countries"

Contaminated wax does not simply disappear! As BWrangler says contaminated wax needs to be burned or go to the dump! Instead many beekeers are rendering and the wax is going back into foundation!

Because of my LEGAL use of strips I had to replace all my comb. Took three years. 
According to Jeff Pettis of the bee lab many methods presented on the internet are sources for contamination. Easily seen with the mass spec machine.

I have heard of mavric fogged in hives and sprayed directly on comb & frames. Those beekeepers will either have to replace all comb or as above look for work outside of beekeeping. Jeff says he sees plenty of comb on which bees can not live!

What long range effects of certain illegal methods are lurking? I can not (and will not) take the risk.

I saw a friend fined $10,000 U.S. dollars for an off label use of mavric. The fine for the *first* off label use in bee hives.

Consider beekeepers I am friends with (have been in almonds in California with) which were fined for using cyanide to fumigate brood comb (a common practice that has been around for decades)
.The top fine I believe was in the $80,000 range and tapered down to a few thousand dollars.

True the larger beekeepers are most likely to get caught but let a customer get sick from your jar of honey and see what happens. What if the problem makes the news. I do not use illegal methods and document legal treatments (yards, treatment and dates) and still carry product liability! Do You!

I have had some heated debates with fellow commercial beekeepers at national meetings! We all saw China and argentina raked over the coals for contaminated honey. Has the U.S. simply been lucky?

I will be out of town for a week on business but will respond on my return if need be.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Yes, brood comb can, over time, become contaminated
with Apistan or Checkmite. Or both.

This is not news. Higher levels can mess up
queen breeding, and no one is really sure if
this is a "queen fecundity" issue, or a "drone
fertility" issue. (See Ron Currie's "Fluvalinate
Queen Tabs for Use Against Varroa..." ABJ Nov
1999 for an almost plain English overview)

But there are TOLERANCES for both chemicals
in honey. One is allowed to sell honey with
low levels of "contamination".

The EPA allows 0.1ppm (1 part per billion) for
Checkmite in both wax and honey, which is a very
low tolerance when one realizes that the same
pesticide (coumaphos) is allowed at 1ppm in meat,
and people tend to eat a lot more meat than honey.
The bad news is that this tolerance was set when
Sioux Bee found levels in the area of 15 parts
per billion in honey as supplied by their large
commercial beekeeper members.

The EPA allows 0.05ppm fluvalinate in honey.
They haven't allowed any fluvalinate in anything
else since 2002.

Now, is someone who postures and poses as
"organic" simply because they use neither
chemical able to make claims about their
honey being somehow "better" than someone
else's honey? Nope, not without owning
an HPLC/MS or at least a creaky old
Gas Chromatograph. One part per billion
is a tiny amount, and lots of contaminants
can get into one's honey at that level in
ways that are unknown to the beekeeper.

The joke is that with the newest equipment,
the Europeans may come up with a rule that
anyone selling them honey must use hybrid
vehicles as bee trucks, because they can
now tell if your bee truck is gas or diesel
from looking at the honey. The joke is not
all that far from the truth.

Calm down folks, anyone eating so much honey
that they might suffer the slightest problem
from contamination of ANY sort is going to
be safely and cozily dead from diabetes or
a heart condition long before they present
any detectable problem from the contamination.

It is OUR problem, not the consumers' problem. 
And yeah, it exists in large part because people
try to get "creative" with crap like Maverick.

Its a really good idea to ask some pointed
questions about where your foundation comes
from, and what your queen producer uses to
control mites in his operation. But don't
dance around the issue by deluding yourself
into thinking that growing your own queens
and making your own foundation (or using
none at all) will somehow protect your hives
and your crop from detectable contamination.

You can't control what you can't measure, and
I've yet to meet a single beekeeper who was
interested in the latest advances in spectroscopy,
so I think I'm well within my rights to say
that no one knows what might be contaminating
their honey, and anyone who is acting smug is
being a complete fool.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>And yeah, it exists in large part because people
try to get "creative" with crap like Maverick.

Well, that's what has pretty much been alluded to here isn't it?


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

That leads me to the questions: 
Is the EPA actually testing any honey anywhwere? Does Sioux Bee? If so does their honey come in below .1ppm? What levels can be seen from a beekeeper's honey whom uses Apistan or checkmite twice a year, at the maximum legal level?

Also, can the illegal use of chemicals easily get overlooked and end up with high levels of these chemicals in honey on the grocery store shelf? High levels will be determined by being over the .1ppm EPA limit. 
I think I know the answer to this one, and one 60 minutes story will have an effect on sales of honey. The news coverage would likely gloss over the fact that 1ppm is allowed in meat.

Sure various contaminations can be found in honey, but when the chemical in question clearly comes from beekeeper mismanagement, it is something that can be avoided.

Also neurological disorders are ugly and hard to track down the cause. Can neurotoxins commonly found in food lead to some neurological disorders? I recently found that simply the lack of sleep can lead to severe neurological symptoms. How do we know how much of what we can safely eat?

In addition, I think it is important to look at the effects of contamination in the broodnest and its effect on the overall health of the hive, which I believe was more of Bob's point. Its not just about the honey. What limits are there for an effect on the bees? 

For me its easy, I just use something else, but this is interesting and it may effect my future plans if the bottom drops out of the honey market due to bad press.

Lots of questions, thanks for any answers.


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

[ April 04, 2006, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: loggermike ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Is the EPA actually testing any honey anywhwere?

They do periodic "studies", but most of the
actual testing is done by states, or was done
back when they had money to do such things.

> Does Sioux Bee?

Oh yeah, and with great care. You simply can't
try to export honey to much of anywhere unless
you do all sorts of tests, as nearly everyone
except the USA has stringent criteria that are
designed to create a barrier to imports.
Likely the individual packer's requirements
for USA packers are viewed by many in other
countries as "stringent".


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

BjornBee, did you discover anything new that you didn't previously know about Mavrik?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Dick, thanks for asking. Trying to spend less time on the board. I get much more done. This is one of those threads that its nice to just read and take it all in.

I have gathered from here and talking to others...

Mavrik is the purer form of apistan. And that answers the question of handling and precautions to be taken if I find it in a hive. I now know that carboard, paper, or plywood would be indicators of the presence.

Not sure about agreeing on the resistant aspect of the discussion. If in conjuction with a IMP program of rotating treatments of several chemicals or other treatment methods, than why the concern of resistance. If mavrik works, it works. Resistance to apistan strips, mavrik, or any other chem will occur with repeated applications over time. For those who do use chems, rotation is the key. Chemical buildup in the wax is a question, but wax/comb rotation solves many problems and would be a way to minimize this(and other possible problems/desease). 

I do know several big commercial operations that use it. I wonder about the packers they sell too. It raises questions in my mind about the claims of residue and whether many statements are just in the realm of "urban legend". The type of comments that sound good, make some kind of sense, and are just repeated over and over again, and just become the standard. I know one packer quite well, and the thought that this and other honey not being tested in not believable to me. How can you use mavrik, and sell to packers that test? Is it as bad as some say?

I also will say that I am really dissappointed with the large operations who use such things as mavrik. (I do understand why though.) At one time I thought buying from a large packer would expose me to chems from honey from other places and countries. After seeing many other small and local beekeepers, I now probably would be more hesitant to buy from them. I see many strips left on all winter, see strips still on the hives through honey flows due to the beekeeper not "getting down" to the brood chamber to remove the strips. (out of site, easily forgotten I suppose). I guess you are exposing yourself either way to possible chems in honey, with a packer or local beekeeper, but I think the packer at least tests in some minimal way from time to time as they have a vested interest in the matter. The small beekeeper down the road was never tested and being all humans, you can't trust all to be honest. I think at this point, his honey scares the crap out of me more. Comes down to knowing who you deal with.

I will state that such discussions are for informational purposes only, coming from my point of view. I hope an informed consumer, or beekeeper in this case, is a better beekeeper. Knowing all you can, whether for your own use, or being able to intelligently discuss matters when questions arise, makes the whole beekeeping industry better. 

I agree with the statement from michaelw about the "bad press". I try to look at big pictures, whether it be the issue of the hobbiest who pollinates commercial farms for free in exchange for honey sites, all the while many other honey sites are available and better producing elsewhere. (This takes business away from others trying to make a living). This weakens the overall perception of the beekeepers value and contributions to the industry. Tainted honey and stories of chemical residue have the same impact. Not good.

I wonder if all chemicals get a bad rap for no fault of thier own. Not for being a chemical, but in conjuction of misuse from the beekeeper. Are the chems nearly as bad if use properly. Knowing that much more is used than most will admit, I hope not. I just constantly see poor(not monetary) beekeepers who can not simply follow labling instructions or use common sense. I guess keeping things like mavrik from the mainstream beekeeping groups would be best. It is a shame that many items have been given to us to use, but its our own ignorance that usually keeps shooting ourselves in the foot.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Just a few more thoughts. Sioux honey does an excellent job of testing honey. Ever wonder what happens to the honey Sioux rejects? Is it dumped? Burned? Shipped over seas? Nope! It's snapped up by other packers. No kidding. Most don't test!

Wonder why? Because most large packers maintain a product tracking system and can trace an individual jar to a specific beekeeper's honey. And if any problems concerning product liability arise, guess where the ball will stop rolling? Right at the beekeepers door.

I expect that in the not too distant future, proof of honey purity will be required by honey buyers before a sale and will be the burden of the beekeeper.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

I look forward to the day the US joins the rest of the world on honey testing.


----------



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

"can trace an individual jar to a specific beekeeper's honey"

I understand that the big packers often do a lot of blending. Do you have any idea how they keep track of it all so they can trace it back to original beekeepers? 

I'm guessing they can probably trace a bottle back to a small group of beekeepers. It would be even more difficult for a packer that packs imported honey. They would only be able to track back to the importer. Again, I'm guessing.

I've never sold to a big packer, so I don't really know how they work.


----------

