# Should FGMO Section Be Discontiued



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

A disclaimer here. 

I do use FGMO w/Thymol presently. 

Elimination of the FGMO section should in no way slow or diminish the importance of continued discussion on the subject.


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

One suggestion would be to add sections for Fumigation Treatments, Powdered sugar treatments, etc.
Or eliminate FGMO section and use the pests and Disease forum for all.


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

Maybe change the name to "Help with Varroa"
I think VM is bad enough to warrant it's own forum. Or maybe call it IPM.
Either way, I feel it would be a good place to combine all ways of fighting VM.
I do feel that although he has helped a lot of people with the FGMO info, the DR. has become a bit too defensive and did the right thing stepping down as moderator. Hopefully he will stay around and post now and then, but let the opinions of everyone be aired with ease as I'm convinced the forum was meant to be.


----------



## JJ (Jun 22, 2004)

Hi everyone. Sundance looks like the poll you posted speaks for itself. If people dont want the FGMO section it wont be used and it will run out. Take care JJ


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

iddee that would be a great idea. It could encompass all treatments for mites like OA, formic, etc..

Good going!!


----------



## kenpkr (Apr 6, 2004)

Iddee said- "I think VM is bad enough to warrant it's own forum. Or maybe call it IPM.
Either way, I feel it would be a good place to combine all ways of fighting VM."

I agree. We need a section devoted to alternative treatments for Varroa. I've just started the FGMO thing and will add Thymol to the mix soon so I'd like a separate forum for my questions to those who currently use it.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

I don't really think we need yet another category. The disease and pests section dosen't see a great amount of traffic as people often ask their varroa and other pest questions in the main forums; 101 and Bee Forum. Same with Biological beekeeping. I think a varroa section would be ovelooked in the same way. 

I didn't vote since I don't use FGMO or plan to, so I wouldn't want to help remove a section that I have no part in. If people have an interest in it then thats fine with me to keep it. But people need to chill out with being overly defensive about scientific studies and personal experiences that somewhat discredit it. If you want to get to the truth about something it can't be all onesided. It may be that FGMO works in some situations and dosen't work well in other situations. Discussing when it fails, will help figure out when it works.


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

>Discussing when it fails, will help figure out when it works.
But that was the problem.Any attempt to report failure was perceived as a personal attack by some, and met with innuendoes of being in the employ of chemical companies or being too incompetent to follow simple application procedures.This had a dampening effect on any objective discussion.So I vote do away with it and let it get discussed in the pests forum without personalities or hurt feelings getting involved(if thats even possible).


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

decided to vote. No need to spread disease and pest information in different sections. Disease and pest section has plenty of elbow room to talk about FGMO.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

My guess is that several of these were in their own forum so the expert on the subject could moderate. When we had "Small Cell" with Dee moderating she could just check that forum and not have to wade through all of the "FGMO" entries or the chemical questions in "Diseases and Pests" and Dr. Rodreiguez could check just the FGMO forum. I know I have trouble keeping up with all the forums and can easily understand why these people would like to be able to just moderate the one forum on their field of expertise without having to wade through all of them.

It's also useful for those who know they don't want to do FGMO, they can just skip that forum. Or those who know they aren't intrested in Biological Beekeeping. They can just skip that fourm. I wouldn't mind if the Pests/disaeses was split out into several catagories just to save me having to read about methods I'm not really interested in.


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

Just as another comment for thought:
It always appeared to me when I was new to this forum that this site was advocating FGMO.
Of course, I know better now.
Here you have general catagories and FGMO!!!
Why not Formic Acid with Bill Ruzika as moderator as well?
Hey! I'll moderate a Powdered Sugar forum!!!
See where I'm going? It looks lopsided and confusing I'm sure for the new beekeepers that look at the catagories.
And speaking of newbees; I would rather they read the pests and diseases threads and learn ALL options rather than jump on a bandwagon like newbees commonly do.
Just a thought.(or two  )


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

As with all such things, the existing threads
should NOT be removed, as they provide valuable
information and cautionary warnings to those who
might have heard "FGMO" mentioned somewhere.

I think the main problem was the lack of ability
to deal with even basic inquiries, such as the
inquiries posed by "Bullseye Bill", as he
described here:
http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000407;p=1#000005

And, as eloquently expressed by "Sundance", it
is the nature of science that any new claim be
questioned, explained, and yes, even "defended"
if you must use the term:
http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000407;p=1#000002

But questions are not "offense", and real
researchers take no offense at questions, even
pointed questions. Therefore, there is no need
to become "defensive".

But not to worry, Pedro will be back.
He has "left" before.
More than once.

I think he should find "his" forum at least
"just as he left it", if not alive and well,
filled with the ongoing discussion between the
skeptics and unskeptical.


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

>>I think he should find "his" forum at least
"just as he left it", if not alive and well,
filled with the ongoing discussion between the
skeptics and unskeptical.<<

Jim, Thanks for that statement. I agree 100%, but coming from you it means much more.

PS. This is NOT sarcastic, it is sincere.


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

>>As with all such things, the existing threads
should NOT be removed,...<<
Sorry, Mr. Fischer, but I disagree.
The problem arose when the thread was allowed in the first place.
For example, why not "Italian Queens"?
Wouldn't a general thread about queens serve the industry better?
Maybe we should have a thread about moving bees; lets call it "Ford Trucks".
I like our list of categories but why go way over there in left field with one very specific topic?
I would like to propose a new category:
"Clearing Honey Supers With Butric Acid"


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

I am sure that the creation of a stand-alone
forum could have been explained with the 
standard-issue reason given for many unusual 
innovations:

"It seemed like a good idea at the time".









As it is a stand-alone forum, it will be very
easy to ignore for those who want it to "go away".

As it is a stand-alone forum, it will be easier
still to search for those interested in the
subject, regardless of their motivation, intent,
affiliation, or amount of Kool-Aid they have
recently drank.









I'll also be happy to lend whatever support
I can to the proposed new forum
"Clearing Honey Supers With Butric Acid".

That's the neat thing about websites and servers -
one can have a near-infinite number of different
forums, and still "keep up" using the
"Today's Active Topics" and/or "Search" functions.

But please spell it "Butyric", and realize
that "Butyric acid" is the oxidized result of
complete and total combustion and/or oxidation 
of the toxic chemical Butyric anhydride, rarely 
found in honey without a large amount of 
(unoxidized) Butyric anhydride along with it.

Butyric acid is NOT what is used to repel bees
by the unenlightened. Butyric anhydride is what
they use. The confusion between the two chemicals
is the result of a deliberate and cynical attempt
to mislead and confuse beekeepers, and try to 
give the very incorrect impression that since 
butyric acid is sometimes found in tiny 
trace-level amounts in some honey made from a 
small number of nectar plants, that Butyric 
anhydride is something that "is naturally 
occurring in honey".

Nothing could be further from the truth.
Butyric anhydride is simply not found in nature
anywhere except perhaps the "worst" diapers a
baby could ever produce.

Butyric simply is no longer permitted in any 
"food-use" applicaton. The EPA "tolerance" for
Butyric was revoked back in 1998. (The EPA
persisted in using the synonym "Butanoic anhydride", 
but it is the same stuff, regardless.)

So what part of "no food use" is unclear?


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

You are too good of a sport, Mr. Fischer.
The fact is, Fischer's Bee Quick usage is written in as one of our company's policies.
However, Im sure you got the point.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

More forums don't hurt my feelings. If there is one for Oxalic acid and one for Formic acid and one for FGMO etc. and there is a knowlegable moderator for each then that moderator can maximize their time by only having to take care of that forum. And if I'm not interested in, say Formic acid, I can skip that one and save myself the trouble of having to sort through them. Especially when they often have such descriptive Topic names like "uh oh!" and "did you see this?" and "boy was that stupid!".


----------



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

I hate to see data "done away with". 

As to how many forums to orgainize into, well, some people are lumpers and some are splitters. I figure if there is a search function and the system makes sense, I can live with just about anything.


----------



## Grant (Jun 12, 2004)

I'd vote for specialized categories or forums, no matter how narrow, even for us Kool-aid drinkers. I'd like a forum for us who favor the lemonade flavor. 

My only criteria is that there would be sufficient conversation to warrant the special designation. Not much chance of that with lemon Kool-aid drinkers. It appears FGMO captured our on-going attention, and will with or without certain personalities. 

Look at the number of postings for each that presently exist. Interest in each forum is self-sorting, with the more general topics attracting the higher counts. But interestingly enough, the more general forums have their appropriate sub-forums. The sub-forums are nothing more than mini-forums, of which all belong to the beesource. 

However, the topics of interest in the more general forums tend to rise and fall before something new comes along. If there isn't sufficient conversation, they topic quietly disappears. No harm, no foul. Maybe we don't really need the specialized forums at all.

Grant
Jackson, MO


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

I think this forum should be kept. It has good info as stated before, it also provides advice. We all have to keep an open mind that there are other ways to control the mite and there is no one method fits all. This just give some people another way to try to control the mite.
Dan


----------



## Ronnie Elliott (Mar 24, 2004)

Here! Here! I agree with Jim, Mike and others. I like FGMO, and all the forums. I can visit each, to find out about the topics. More forums, I have no problems with, but I like the FGMO forum. I look every day for Pedro's return. He might have a "short fuse", but he is a great person. All the scientists have spent time, and money to help us all. He will be remembered as a forerunner of FGMO. I think we will be reading positive articles about Dr. Rodriquez in the magazines before he really calls it quits...


----------



## clintonbemrose (Oct 23, 2001)

Very well said. We need more researchers trying for the bees.

Clint


----------

