# Fogging not working for varroa



## Dan W (Feb 24, 2004)

I have been fogging once a week with the thymol mixture once a week sence early spring. My hives built up nicely and appeared to be quite strong and healthy. I got a total of 22 gallons from 5 hives. One hive filled up 4 shallow supers. Over the last two weeks I noticed a few varroa mites on some worker bees in the hives with my naked eye. I purchased some Checkmite strips and put them in my hives. I was shocked!! My best hive (the one I got 4 supers from) had thousands of mites on the pull out bottom board in less than 24 hours. The bottom board insert is white plastic and it is now brown due to the fact that it is COVERED with varroa mites. The fogging does not work for the varroa mites in my opinion. I feel that it only works for the tracheal mites and nothing else. Please share your thoughts on this. Thanks, Dan.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

That's the reason I've always recommended monitoring and not blindly assuming something is working, regardless of the method used.

Dr. Rodriguez reccomends using the cords and fogging. Anything less (such as just fogging) is not what he recommends.

I have not used the cords and have had good luck with just the FGMO fog without the thymol. But I think circumstances can make a difference, such as nearby hives crashing from mites and being robbed out by yours. This can bring back thousands of mites in a short time. FGMO is not the kind of treatment that will kill thousands of mites in a short time. It IS the kind of treatment that continuously kills some mites and continously causes more grooming and mites falling. With a SBB this can keep them under control under the right circumstances.

I have had the same kind of failure from Apistan, so I don't think it is as simple as saying FGMO works or does not work. All methods I know of will fail under certain circumstances or if they are not applied entirely correctly. With the Apistan failure it was resistance that caused it to fail for me.

I think monitoring and making adjustments or using a different method to compensate for failures is ALWAYS necessary whatever method/chemical/treamtment you are using.

To blindly assume that any method is working is likely to end in disaster sooner or later.


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hello folks.
Heading for home in Virginia today, God willing. Will be in touch as soon as I am there.
Right again, brother Micahel. Thanks for your wonderful explanation. 
FGMO is an alternative method and will work best if:
1. fogging at least once a week
2. applied together with emulsion soaked cords.
3. FGMO/thymol, emulsion soaked cords, SBB, monitoring, checking for other diseases/pests
In other words, beekeeping is complicated, and one must be one one's toes if one wishes to succeed.
Best regards and God bless.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## Murray (Apr 24, 2004)

Dan,

Thank you for your input. I agree that fogging with Thymol is mostly ineffective against varroa. I conducted a similar test earlier this year, and was surprised at the huge mite drop that I got with Checkmite after applying thymol fog. The results of my test was questioned on this site because I only applied three fogging treatments. But you fogged every week for a much longer period and had even worse results. This confirms what common sense would indicate: If a single treatment does not drop significantly more mites than no treatment at all, why would two, or three, or twenty treatments make any difference? If you were treating every week, and the treatment was working, it wouldn't have mattered whether neighboring apiaries had mites. Your treatment should have been killing incoming mites weekly. If a long stream of weekly treatments can't bring your mite level to near-zero or at least something low and managable, what's the point?? I am glad that you caught your mite problem when you did. I am also glad that you posted your findings. I was actually thinking of trying weekly thymol fogging again simply as a preventative. After reading your posting, however, I don't think that I'm going to.

Regards,
Murray


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hello folks.
Those of you who have been around in the forum for a while and those who read the archieves will hear the "echo" in their ears loud and clear. There are many people in all walks of life trying to re-invent the wheel. In this forum, there are some of those also, as well as a lot of honest, down to earth beekeepers who are having tremendous success with FGMO alone, FGMO w/thymol, and FGMO w/thymol and FGMO emulsion w/thymol. I continue to have tremendous success both in Virginia and in Spain (in participation with my research partners) and there are lots of beekeepers who write to gratefully express their thanks for having come across the use of FGMO. Anyone care to venture a guess why there are beekeepers who succeed with FGMO? I think that the clue lies in that they do not attempt to "re-invent the wheel." For the last 10 plus years, I have kept constantly applying the same parameters, although I admit that I keep trying to find new ways to make FGMO more cost effective for the sake of those beekeepers who claim that the procedure is labor intensive. Be as it may, I have always maintained that FGMO is an alternative procedure and that if the established procedure is followed correctly you are bound to succeed. Unfortunately, those who do not trust the system, quit or vary the system adding their own ideas or varying the application to fit their needs, suddenly meet "unknowns," these being the result of their own practice. Those who experience these failures blame FGMO when in fact the failure is not FGMO's, the failure has been in their practice. Chemical treatments have been failing ever since they were introduced way bakc in the late eighties! And gues what? They are bound to continue to fail because history has taught us that this is to be expected, that this does happen, especially when beekeepers are neglectful! FGMO is not claimed to be a "silver bullet" but it is certainly offering an effective alternative treatment to those who are looking for safe, cost-efective and economic remedies for control of honey bee mites. Guess what fellow contributors to this forum. We the owners of the bees are free to do with our bees what we wish. No one is obligating anyone to chose any type of treatment. 
Those of us who love our bees, nature and the wholesomeness of the foods we consume continue to look for non-chemical agents to treat our bees. I pray that The Good Lord will provide me with strength and good health to continue my efforts in that direction. 
Best regards, Happy beekeeping and may The Good Lord bless all of us.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## Oxankle (Jan 8, 2004)

Well, Fellows:

I started fogging this spring. I used the cords, too, until the bees burr-combed in the trays so that I could not pull them to replace cords. After that it was FGMO with thymol only, once per week until August, each 5 days or twice weekly since then. 

For the first time in several years my hives are thick with healthy drones in September. Bee populations are way up there. Hives that were weak in the spring produced no honey but built up so that I have good, heavy colonies going into fall. 

I continue to use more oil than I expected, but the cost is low and I prefer live bees to low oil consumption. I think that I have now mixed six litres of the oil/thymol mix. Glad I bought a pound of thymol. 

There is a learning curve if you have no experienced mentor. It took me a while to learn that the fogger will cool and spit oil if you proceed too rapidly. The reservoir should be kept half full or better if the pump is to work efficiently. The bees should get a whiff of the FGMO from a foot or so away to allow them to move out of the way before you hit the hive entrance with heavy fog. The manufacturer is not kidding you when you are instructed to keep the fogger level. Others have warned about the flamethrower effect. 

I don't know how others feel about this, but I feel better if there is a top opening to allow the FGMO to fog the entire hive rather than just the bottom two boxes. 

On top bar hives, I lift the back bar and blow the fog in there until it comes out the hive entrance, then pop the bar down tightly . One or two puffs will fill any TBH. 

Nay-sayers can draw their own conclusions, but my bees are healthier now than when I treated with Apistan. The mere presence of drones is evidence that mites are not ruling my colonies. 
Ox


----------



## shoefly (Jul 9, 2004)

Are you going to stop taking vitamins when you get your third or fourth cold of the year? ..because the vitamins didn't "work"? I hope not. There are many other environmental factors at play when you get a cold or when a bee hive succumbs to V-mites. You are more likely to catch a cold from not washing your hands - same with the bees, they have to be encouraged to groom and clean.

I'm a new beekeeper and will continue fogging to encourage grooming, keep T-mites and V-mites low, and have hives that stay strong.


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

I too have experience larger hive populations using FGMO, and now in the fall FGMO with thymol. This is great stuff. I have lost 20 hives in one year using strips about 3-4 years ago. The mite is most defiantly building resistance to the strips. This 'new' method of fogging is kicking the s... out of the mites. I haven't had hives this healthy in years. Last time I had bees like this is back 15 years. Those were the good old days. My biggest problem was skunks, birds, dragon flies, and yes swarming. Gosh I would like those days back. Compared to mites I would gladly have those old problems back. Unfortunately they will never be back and FGMO will have to do and it is doing at least for me.
Dan


----------



## Tia (Nov 19, 2003)

I got my first bees in March of 2003. They have been fogged with FGMO only every five days--weather permitting, of course. I give each hive about five hits/fog them until the fog starts coming out the top--then I know it's reached the entire hive. The sticky board test I did last week found five mites in one hive, 3 in the second and none in the third. Except for the problems I've had this year with yellow jackets and baldfaced hornets, my girls are doing great. They're extremely hygenic and prolific and have been working very hard getting ready for the winter months. In short, I'm a believer.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2004)

While Keith Delaplane's recent 100% fact-free ABJ "article" consisting of 
nothing but hearsay in criticism of FGMO was perhaps the most unprofessional 
piece I have ever seen published by any legitimate researcher in the "bee" 
field, I also don't think that "blaming the beekeeper" is fair either.

> There are many people in all walks of life trying to re-invent the wheel. 

Well, lets see... who is re-inventing what?

1) First, it was said that fogging FGMO alone would control varroa.

2) When this was not replicable in controlled studies, suddenly one
had to also use the FGMO-soaked cords.

3) And when that was also not replicable, then we were told to add thymol.

It seems to me that the "re-inventing" is not a charge that should
be laid at the feet of beekeepers, who currently have at least 3 
very different methodologies to choose from.

> ...there are some... who are having tremendous success with 
> FGMO alone, FGMO w/thymol, and FGMO w/thymol and FGMO emulsion w/thymol. 

Oooops! I stand corrected. FOUR very different methodologies!

But if all 4 methods work, why has the methodology gotten more complicated,
time-consuming, and expensive with each change to the "suggested" methodology?

> Anyone care to venture a guess why there are beekeepers who succeed with FGMO? 

I can't find any who HAVE succeeded over the long term. In fact, the USDA
Bee Lab at Beltsville, MD was using FGMO fogging (with nothing else added)
as their "control" in a study of various substances that could be "fogged".
("Control" means that this is expected to be the same as "no treatment",
where an inert substance is used as a placebo.) I was planning to write 
one of my Bee Culture articles in an attempt to resolve some of the confusion
about FGMO, but without some multi-year successes to point to, I have nothing 
to write about but stories of failure.

> Unfortunately, those who do not trust the system, quit or vary the system 
> adding their own ideas or varying the application to fit their needs, suddenly
> meet "unknowns," these being the result of their own practice. 

So which method is >>THE SYSTEM<<, the methodology that beekeepers and other 
researchers should use? Where is it documented, and where are the other (prior) 
methods clearly dismissed as "non-optimal" in light of >>THE SYSTEM<< ?

> Those who experience these failures blame FGMO when in fact the failure is not 
> FGMO's, the failure has been in their practice.

Well, traffic in this section of Beesource has been somewhat light, and the Yahoo
group "FGMOBeekeeping" is a ghost town. If the only problem facing the beekeeper
was one of technique, one would expect more discussion. What the actual pattern 
seems to be is that people get interested, talk about it for a bit, and then
are promptly NEVER HEARD FROM AGAIN. This is not a good sign.

Without more than a scattering of cases of
multi-season survival of both colonies and beekeepers, one can only
assume that the colonies died, and the beekeeper is no longer keeping bees
as a result of the colony losses.


----------



## shoefly (Jul 9, 2004)

You are probably right if success is defined as having asolutely no V-mites or having no hive succumb to V-mite investations. 
It appears though that the application of strong pesticides will not guarantee long term V-mite kill and in the short term weaken the health of the hive.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Considering my own experiences and the reports of many others I can make all the same claims of lack of efficacy for Apistan. It failed completely for me and for many beekeepers I know.

FGMO has less risk to me, to my honey, to my bees than Apistan, the same possibility of failure (it will or won't work and I'll monitor the results) as Apistan or any other treatment in common use. Also, any soft treatment such as powdered sugar, FGMO etc. has the potential to be overwhelmed by nearby hives crashing from mites and your hives bringing in large numbers of mites from outside from robbing. Which brings us back to why you should always monitor the mite levels. Otherwise how will you know what's happening?

And now that the mites are getting resistant to Checkmite...

Considering the rate of failure of the "recommended" treatments, I'm constantly amazed anyone bothers to act like some failures prove that a method is not of any value at all. Purveyors of the "recommended" mitacides claiming that some other method having some failures proves that method is not efficaous, is the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## JJ (Jun 22, 2004)

Hello everyone. Well said M.B. Well Im still here with my 54 hives and im still using FGMO&THYMOL.My hives look great and are busting with bees.My mite counts are low and i am happy with what i see. I have not spent near the money on FGMO&THYMOL as i have apistan or checkmite. I feel great when i sell my honey now to know that its not full of chemicals. So i believe that i am going to keep using this METHOD (fgmo&thymol). THANKS DR. for all you have done to help the ones who have bees with this METHOD(fgmo&thymol). Im sure that if you would have had the help that some of the others have had on there research you would not have had to add little adjustments to your METHOD. Again DR. keep up the good work.For those who dont believe in this METHOD its real easy DONT USE IT. Thanks yall take care JJ


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I appreciate a beekeeper who will report failure as well as success. I seem to learn more from my failures, maybe it's because I have more of them, than my successes. :> )

For me, if a method is effective, simple and robust, it's a good one. If it lacks any of these qualities is just another one.

Any method that needs a long list of qualifiers for success might not be very robust, even though it may be simple to apply. When using such a method, counting mites is a necessity! And counting them for more than a couple of years is also necessary as the mites tend to run in cycles as well. 

Applying FGMO is not rocket science. When done at "least weekly", any beekeeper should get enough of the stuff in a hive to make a difference, whether its flamed, smoked or sputtered in. 

Lots of factors can affect how a colony progresses. Getting the pesticides out of a hive makes a dramatic difference in colony health and strength. When I was experimenting with small cell, I first attributed the difference in colony health to cell size. But when I put bees on clean, large cell wax, I saw the same advantages. It was the lack of pesticides that made the difference and not the cell size as I had originally thought. Could something like this be happening with FGMO?

Look out it's ranting time:> )))

Echos? Anyone hearing echos? I'm hearing lots of them. The faithful gather around when any negative reports surface and they get defensive. The thoughful gather a few mite traps and get counting. :> )

I think a beekeeper shares these failures as a warning to others and not as a personal attack. If a method can't stand on its own merits, then it must not be very robust.

And I think any beekeeper promoting his ideas in a public forum should be prepared to take both good and bad news without shooting the messenger.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I appreciate a beekeeper who will report failure as well as success. I seem to learn more from my failures, maybe it's because I have more of them, than my successes. :> )

For me, if a method is effective, simple and robust, it's a good one. If it lacks any of these qualities is just another one.

Any method that needs a long list of qualifiers for success might not be very robust, even though it may be simple to apply. When using such a method, counting mites is a necessity! And counting them for more than a couple of years is also necessary as the mites tend to run in cycles as well. 

Applying FGMO is not rocket science. When done at "least weekly", any beekeeper should get enough of the stuff in a hive to make a difference, whether its flamed, smoked or sputtered in. 

Lots of factors can affect how a colony progresses. Getting the pesticides out of a hive makes a dramatic difference in colony health and strength. When I was experimenting with small cell, I first attributed the difference in colony health to cell size. But when I put bees on clean, large cell wax, I saw the same advantages. It was the lack of pesticides that made the difference and not the cell size as I had originally thought. Could something like this be happening with FGMO?

Look out it's ranting time:> )))

Echos? Anyone hearing echos? I'm hearing lots of them. The faithful gather around when any negative reports surface and they get defensive. The thoughful gather a few mite traps and get counting. :> )

I think a beekeeper shares these failures as a warning to others and not as a personal attack. If a method can't stand on its own merits, then it must not be very robust.

And I think any beekeeper promoting his ideas in a public forum should be prepared to take both good and bad news without shooting the messenger. If it is the 'honest' beekeepers who are reporting success, then is it the 'dishonest' beekeepers reporting the failures? Are those guys lying about their mite counts? And why would they do that? Yikes!

Regards
Dennis
I'm listening to all sides as I don't want to be caught wearing the 'Emperiors Clothes'


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

Well I have done my own personal experiments with fgmo and fgmo/thymol on over 500 hives with NO control, and have moved on .I only post this as a warning to others to be careful and monitor the results if you choose to try this.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I agree, I like to hear the successes and the failures. I just think we need to keep in mind that there are no foolproof, one size fits all, silver bullet solutions. You have to monitor and if it's not working for you do something different.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2004)

> Considering my own experiences and the reports of many others I can make all the 
> same claims of lack of efficacy for Apistan. It failed completely for me and for 
> many beekeepers I know.

I was hoping that FGMO could prove to be slightly more effective than
Apistan's very limited impact on Apistan-resistant mites.









Apistan-resistant mites did not show up for the first decade of Apistan use,
and Apistan resistance is only showing up in small numbers of small areas, 
giving weight to the claim that such resistance was a result of beekeeper 
mis-use of the product (re-using strips, leaving them in all winter, and so on). 

If the resistance was an inevitable result of prudent use, then resistance
would have shown up in wider areas, nearly everywhere. It has not, which
is a big clue as to the root cause of the pockets of resistance.

> FGMO has less risk to me, to my honey, to my bees than Apistan, the same 
> possibility of failure (it will or won't work and I'll monitor the results) 
> as Apistan or any other treatment in common use.

Ummm, wait a second Michael... what happened to your small-cell bees?
Are you saying that you must treat your regressed hives for mites?
I had the impression that you were a strong advocate of small-cell,
and even wanted to sell small-cell packages or nucs or something.

I'd sure like to hear from anyone who has been using FGMO for a few years has 
been keeping any detailed records, as I'd like to see some data that looks 
reasonable, where one sees a rational and believable "control", where colony 
losses are tracked and admitted to, but are less than "I lost them all in
year 2 or year 3".

I'd even be interested in anyone who has been alternating between FGMO and
one of the "nasty chemicals", as even this would be valuable data.

> Which brings us back to why you should always monitor the mite levels. 
> Otherwise how will you know what's happening?

Gosh, what a unique and refreshing viewpoint!








No wonder no one cares about standardizing mite-counting - so few
are counting mites at all! 

> And now that the mites are getting resistant to Checkmite...

Worse than that, mites resistant to Checkmite tend to also be resistant
to Apistan, by definition. Any mite that can survive an organophosphate
treatment can likely crawl out of the hive, mug the beekeeper, and take
his watch and wallet!

> Considering the rate of failure of the "recommended" treatments, I'm constantly 
> amazed anyone bothers to act like some failures prove that a method is not of 
> any value at all. 

Controlled studies have yet to result in anything that might be called "success".
While the anecdotal record is spotty, analysis of internet postings to the dozen
or so beekeeping-related groups reveal the pattern I described, and have revealed
NO successful/happy FGMO users with track records longer than 2 seasons. Sadly,
the bulk of the posters expressing initial satisfaction with FGMO are impossible
to contact for follow-up details, as they tend to unsubscribe from the online 
group(s), and are not known by their local beekeeper association to still be keeping 
bees as soon as one year after the postings. (One of the advantages of having 
supercomputers lying about is that one can churn away at list archives and do such analysis.)

> Purveyors of the "recommended" miticides claiming that some other method having 
> some failures proves that method is not efficaous, is the pot calling the kettle black.

Well, the "recommended" miticides are "recommended" for a reason. They work in 
repeated controlled studies, and they work in widespread use by beekeepers in
a wide range of environments, with a wide range of expertise and experience. 
"Soft treatments" like thymol, oxalic, formic, and powdered sugar have also 
worked in both controlled studies and widespread use, but with the qualification 
that they tend to provide less complete control, and less consistent results.


----------



## Kurt Bower (Aug 28, 2002)

You certainly get around Mr. Fischer.
For the record... I am still happily using FGMO going into my 3rd year. I also know of many that are experiencing similar results and are quite content. 
Sorry to hear your negative comments and hope that your method of treatment suits you well.

Kurt


----------



## Tia (Nov 19, 2003)

This post is starting to sound like the Presidential Campaign! What's with all the backbiting? Some things work for some and other things work for others. Can't we leave it at that? Must we all be the only ones who are correct?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>> FGMO has less risk to me, to my honey, to my bees than Apistan, the same 
>> possibility of failure (it will or won't work and I'll monitor the results) 
>> as Apistan or any other treatment in common use.

>Ummm, wait a second Michael... what happened to your small-cell bees?

Nothing has happened to my small-cell bees. What did I say that would infer that something has happened to them?

>Are you saying that you must treat your regressed hives for mites?

You can jump to a conclusion at the drop of a hat. I am not treating my regressed hives with anything currently. But assuming I could without contaminating the wax that seems like a good way to measure the success or failure of the small cell to control the mites by doing mite drop counts to find out how many mites they are carrying. I have clearly stated many times what I have done and what I am doing. I used FMGO fog (no thymol no cords) during the regression of my bees. I have not used FGMO since last fall. But I also did oxalic acid treatments last fall and counted the mites in the hive after two years of FGMO fog (while regressing) and nothing else and posted those counts here.

>I had the impression that you were a strong advocate of small-cell,
and even wanted to sell small-cell packages or nucs or something.

Jumping to conclusions again? I think, in the end, it's the only real long term solution. Yes. What did I say to infer that I dont? Just because Im doing small cell, doesnt mean that I assume that everything else does not work nor does it mean that I didnt try a lot of these things on the way to being regressed. Why is everything so polarized for you, Jim?

>> Which brings us back to why you should always monitor the mite levels. 
>> Otherwise how will you know what's happening?

>Gosh, what a unique and refreshing viewpoint! 

Did I somehow infer that I invented this idea? Have you actually taken lessons on how to be insulting even when agreeing with people?

>No wonder no one cares about standardizing mite-counting - so few
are counting mites at all! 

Few are. And so, despite your making fun of me for doing so, I will continue to preach it. If you don't count the mites how do you know it (whatever you are doing or not doing) is working?


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I have a good idea why mite counting is so neglected. For the hobbiest, it's just not very much fun, especially in the long term. For the commercial guy, there's just not enough time in the season.

I started consistently counting mites on about 16 colonies in 1996. And stopped in 2003. I monitored mites, throughout the year, on a cycle that varied from three days to two weeks. And I know that counting mites is just about as much fun as measuring a gazillion bees. But there's no better way to learn about mite cycles and treatment effectiveness.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2004)

>> Gosh, what a unique and refreshing viewpoint! 

> Did I somehow infer that I invented this idea? 

No, and not even an ego as large as yours can be so deluded 
as to think such a thing. Not everything is about you.
Not every joke is aimed at you.

If you had read the very next line (which you reproduced below), 
it would put the line above into context, and should have 
convinced nearly anyone that I was in AGREEMENT with you. Just 
how many smiles do I have to one a line to get a "computer programmer" 
like yourself to understand that I am joking?

> Have you actually taken lessons on how to be 
> insulting even when agreeing with people?

This is, once again, unacceptable behavior.
I've had about enough of it.
The long hours you spend every day responding to
basic questions is certainly appreciated by all, but
this does not give you license to attack others.

Can ANYONE take issue with your opinions, ever?

Its amazing how anyone who poses a view even slightly divergent 
with yours is beaten down with the sort of nonsense you just 
tossed at me. Its almost becoming impossible to have an adult
conversation on this board, what with your pontificating
inserted into nearly EVERY thread.

Even if I AGREE with you, as I do in this case, you take
any comment made by me as a personal affront. I'm not
going to waste Pedro's time asking him to nuke your posting,
but it is a very bad idea to claim that someone is somehow
"being insulting" in a post where you are insulting.

>> No wonder no one cares about standardizing mite-counting - 
>> so few are counting mites at all! 

> Few are. And so, despite your making fun of me for doing so, 

I'm not making any fun, and never have intended to do so, but that's 
not to say that you won't continue to read everything I write as somehow
insulting to you, that's just insecurity. I honestly don't know what
I did to deserve it, and I certainly haven't angered anyone else in
over 25 years "on the net".

> I will continue to preach it. If you don't count the mites 
> how do you know it (whatever you are doing or not doing) is working?

Another way to say it would be to quote my standard rant, 
published planet-wide, and heard at conferences around
the globe:

"One cannot control that which they do not measure."

But then you spend all your time on BeeSource, and may 
not have time to read the published papers, attend 
conferences, or read the trade rags. One is forced to
wonder how you find time to do any actual beekeeping.









Now, as to actual beekeeping, rather than your invective:

> I used FMGO fog (no thymol no cords) during the regression of my bees. 

Thank you for a simple answer to a simple question!

You profess expertise and intimate knowledge of so many techniques in
your many postings that it is difficult to know what you are doing now,
vs. what you tried in the past, vs. what you have seen done, vs. what
you have read about.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I do understand when you've reached a stable system for some time, it seems to be less important. I've counted less mites this year than in the past, but that's because with the natural sized cells, there isn't much to count.

But for people still trying to work out their mite problems I think it's essential. I know a lot of people who have lost their bees because they just used Apistan according to directions, in the spring and fall without any mite counts to justify the need for treatment and without any counts to verify it was working.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2004)

> For the record... I am still happily using
> FGMO going into my 3rd year. I also know 
> of many that are experiencing similar 
> results and are quite content. 

Please contact me off-list. My e-mail
is listed in my "profile" (the envelope
icon in the header of this message).

Given Keith Delaplane's article in ABJ,
Pedro could use some support, even if it
is anecdotal. I have been trying to find
people with multi-year track records using
FGMO for a while, as I am convinced that
it comes down to fogging technique, and
I can put some step-by-step photos in a
Bee Culture article, and, if required,
put up a downloadable video too.


Danke!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>> Have you actually taken lessons on how to be insulting even when agreeing with people?

>This is, once again, unacceptable behavior.
I've had about enough of it. The long hours you spend every day responding to basic questions is certainly appreciated by all, but this does not give you license to attack others.

I thought I was asking a legitimate question.

>Can ANYONE take issue with your opinions, ever?

Many people disagree with me, and I have no problem with that, I expect it. I am certainly not the only person with an opinion and I personally want to hear everyone else's opinions, especially when they are different from mine.

But in this case I thought we were AGREEING, not taking issue. My compaint certainly had nothing to do with your agreeing with me but the sarcastic tone with which you did it.

>I honestly don't know what I did to deserve it, and I certainly haven't angered anyone else in over 25 years "on the net".

I assume you forgot the smiley face? Or the winking eye?

>You profess expertise and intimate knowledge of so many techniques in your many postings that it is difficult to know what you are doing now, vs. what you tried in the past, vs. what you have seen done, vs. what you have read about. 

I try to be very clear in my responses about what I have personal experience in, what I have read and what I know nothing about. I'm sorry if it was sometimes unclear to you. If you could be specific about what you'd like to know or if you'd like a chronolgy of what I've done I'd be happy to try to clarify.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2004)

> My compaint certainly had nothing to do 
> with your agreeing with me but the 
> sarcastic tone with which you did it.

Once again, every word said here is not about you. I really don't know what your
problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to 
pronounce!


----------



## Oxankle (Jan 8, 2004)

Unless one accepts the inference suggested by some whose colonies died---the inference being that those of us who report success are deluded and that our bees are all going to die--there must be an explanation for the success of some and the failure of others. 

Success in one year or ten is success. If my bees produced nothing last year, had no drones after late June and came thru the winter weak even after treating with Apistan, then built up well, produced 
heavily and have healthy drones into October I might well be excused for thinking it is because I started fogging in March. If I tear my hives apart and find no mites in the drone comb between supers I might think fogging works. 

If I quit fogging now and find that my hives die, am I to conclude that FGMO does not work? 

There has to be an explanation why some of us report success and others report failure. Dan W: When did you do the checkmite strips? Did you have healthy drones in the hives at the time? Did you tear any drone comb apart to see if the drone larvae was infested? 

You report fogging weekly: What kind of oil? Walmart or some other supplier? Thymol, natural extract or chemical synthetic? 

What technique? How many seconds/squirts per hive? Fogger--Burgess or some other? Did you skip any weeks? Did you pay extra attention to the bees during the August mite mite buildup? 

Did you wait to see fog coming out the tops, or did you just blow fog in the entrance? 

There is either an explanation or a finding that FGMO is a delusion. Take your pick. 
Ox


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

To be fair to those who would point it out anyway, you can explain it as just luck. One year you were lucky and one you were not. On the other hand I don't know how much of NOT having Varroa is luck, since everyone not doing something about them seems to have plenty of them.

I have a suspicion that some of the failure of any method (possibly even INCLUDING Apistan, Checkmite etc.) may be due, not just to resistance, but to outside influences of mites brought back. With a less lethal treatment like FGMO this can be more of a problem then with a more lethal treatment, but what if you treat with Checkmite earlier and they bring back a lot of mites afterwards?


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2004)

There are several major possibilities in my view -

1) FGMO efficacy depends upon technique, weather
fogger nozzle temperature, something specific.

This would explain the mix of results reported, and
why views are so strongly divergent. It might also
explain the lack of replication by other researchers
in controlled studies.

2) FGMO does not really "control" varroa, but
does slow it down.

This would explain the appearance of initial success,
followed by colony losses later. In this event,
FGMO would still be useful as a treatment to use 
in "alternating treatments" with something more effective,
or as an interim treatment when one is "downsizing" cells.

3) FGMO only "works" when varroa would not have killed 
the colony in the first place.

An edge condition, and the least likely, but this would 
explain the inability of controlled studies to replicate 
Pedro's results, and still allow a scattering of beekeepers 
to be satisfied with their results.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Whoever wants my input, read on. I started with 8 hives and fogged religiously. All eight died in a winter where (here) even experienced beekeepers lost 100%. So that year proves nothing. Next year I started with 20 nucs and bought disease. Went into the winter with 10 and came out with 6. This year I added 9 packages to those 6. Fogging wekly (no Thymol) all the way. I got 500 lbs of honey this year and have 16 healthy hives now after I just killed 2 for other, as yet unresolved problems...Maybe AFB. Not mites. On Aug 8 I measured daily drops. They went from none to 148. All but 2 were under 50. The 148 and the 50+ hive, I treated with oxalic acid. I haven't been very good about monitoring. I think somethings working. This is pretty checkered but I feel like a success. What are the chances (The null hypothesis, jim?) that I'm doing well in a mite environment by luck. I know it's possible, but what are the chances?

Dickm


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

Hi guys, well I think just like the rest of you that you have to monitor the results. Shooting in the dark only leads you to a fauls sense of security. I think a combination of SMR queens mixed with FGMO (or whatever you chose for a control on the mite)will be the way to go. I would leave the production of SMR queens to the hobbiest (like me) who can take a loss on the bees and the labs who have access to hundreds of hives. I use thier breeders to incorporat into my stock and do AI on the queens. I then let these queens raise others to open breed. I long for the day when we have bees once again that need minimal to none treatment. Both MB, myself and I know there are others who remember those days.
Dan


----------



## Oxankle (Jan 8, 2004)

Doc R. has been doing this now for several years, improving his method as he goes. I'd say that if we use his methods and keep our bees, that is replication. 

Just to satisfy myself, I am going out Monday and run the sticky board, but last time I did this I found perhaps half a dozen mites. Hardly worth doing for that. Now that summer is over I'll try again and see what I find. 

Something is happening here that we do not yet understand--there is some critical element of this treatment that some people are achieving and some are missing. Could it be fog particle size? Is it oil density-do some of us have oil that just will not do the job? 
Ox


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2004)

> This is pretty checkered but I feel like a success. What are the 
> chances (The null hypothesis, jim?) that I'm doing well in a mite 
> environment by luck. I know it's possible, but what are the chances?

I'd say "slim to none". Luck alone can keep varroa from getting
to a yard or two, but if luck alone could let colonies survive 
active mite infestations, varroa would be described as a pest 
that can "sometimes" or "often" kill colonies.

In controlled studies, one must not treat (or use a placebo treatment)
on some number of colonies and monitor what happens to them to contrast
to the treated ones. One of the problems with long term studies 
involving varroa has been the prompt and certain death of the control
colonies. If luck had anything to do with it, some of them would
survive. 

I was trading e-mails about the "FGMO" issue with another beekeeper, 
and I said something I should repeat here:

Although I am a hard-nose about strict formal 
science as proof of something upon which one 
should bet one's hives, It should be obvious 
that I would not be wasting time even thinking 
about FGMO if I did not think that there was 
something there. Ditto for small cell, which 
is why I'm also so tough on that approach. 
At least I have a consistent methodology!

It would be nice to convince beekeepers to keep better notebooks, 
and stop being purveyors of nothing but anecdotes and aprochryphal
stories. It would also be nice to give the researchers a thrashing 
for wasting time and money by not bringing in beekeeper advocates of 
different approaches and letting them tutor their techs on the 
specifics of the methods and techniques that led to the successes 
they claim to have experienced. OK, I'm a dreamer.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

See my above post. Since then, the state inspector has gone through my hives with me. Despite low counts all the hives had at least some mite damage (and some a lot of it). There were mites obvious on bees, deformed wings and mites in dead worker larvae. The 2 hives I killed because they weren't going to make it were not foulbrood. They had been killed by mites in the brood. The resulting dead and uncapped brood looked like disease. I agonized over the Apistan decision for a day or so and got busy with the O/a. I fogged religiously every week, all year. No cords, no thymol.
I think the fogging kept the mites down some but with out further treatment I would have had heavy winter losses again. I may do it next year with Thymol, Though I'm told it's pretty stinky stuff.
A few hives had 40/50 mite counts with no visible damage upstairs. "Breed from these", I was told. "Something is making those mites drop off." 
Just because something is "natural" doesn't make it a non-chemical. I was told that Apistan is derived from something in a Chrysanthemum. What say you chemists?

Dickm


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Most of the visible symptoms for PMS are caused by mite vectored viruses. When I was counting mites, some hives would show lots of symptoms with a very low percentage of mites. Other hives, like my Russians, could handle a tremendous mite load before showing any visible symptoms at all. The difference was not mite tolerance, but resistance to the mite vectored viruses. In my Russian hives, visible symptons were seen just one brood cycle before the hive would collapse. 

When colonies are full of brood and mite infestations are low, about two-thirds of the mites are sealed up with the brood and unaffected by most treatments. But when mite levels are high, a much higher percentage are sealed up with the brood, as mites reduce their questing time from about 4 days to less than 2 days.

When a hive reaches that condition a very effective treatment is needed as lots of mites will be 'hatching' out with the callow bees. And if they are not intercepted by the treatment within a day or so, they will be sealed up and breeding again. And the treatment duration must be long enough to intercept all the mites sealed up when the treatments are started. Bees are sealed at days 8 through 10, and emerge at days 16 through 24, depending upon the type of bee. So for a worst cases senario, a minimum of 16 days of effective treatment would be needed if a treatment were 100% effective. Most treatments aren't that effective, so a full worker brood cycle or three weeks is recommended. The miticides are sold in slow release plastic strips for this reason. 

So, lets look at a few different kinds of treatments under those conditions. Powdered sugar dusting would require daily treatments for three weeks, as its effectiveness at 80 to 90% is measured in hours. Oxalic acid, whose effectiveness of 95% is measured in days,would require three treatments about a week apart. FGMO, with a 60% effectiveness and applied weekly, would require continous treatments just to maintain the current level of mite infestation. 

Any treatment with a 60% effectiveness keeps mite levels almost constant with a slight increase. There is no problem when mite levels are low. But the converse is also true and can be disasterous when mite levels are high. Such a treatment will hold the mite levels in check but will not significantly reduce them. Miss or misapply a treatment and 2500 mites can suddenly become 5000.

And maintaining mites at a certain level doesn't mean the viruses vectored by them will stay at a constant level within the bee population, especially when the mite levels are high. That has been my experience with FGMO, although I admit my experience is dated.

Hence, Michael's recommendation to monitor any treatment and get experience with it before trusting it, is very good advice. 

Regards
Dennis
Thinking beekeeping with continous, daily or weekly treatments might be more focused on mites than bees :> )


[This message has been edited by topbarguy (edited October 10, 2004).]


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hello folks.
Re: mite vectored pathogens. 
Dennis: your theory is right, however, your exposition has has some "holes."
Besides my constant reports, there are reapeated testimonials on this forum about people who are having excellent rsults using FGMO. I think that the 60% effectiveness reported by you is due to lack of strict foloow up of procedures used by those who are having success with FGMO. 
And also, please remember that I continue to stress the fact tht best results are obtained when emulsion soaked cords and fogging are utilized simultaneously. 
Fogging once a week and emulsion soaked cords replaced once every 15-21 days. The reason for this is precisely to cope with the daily surge of mites as they emerge with the new bees.
Thanks to all of you for your continued support of this column.
Best regards and God bless.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I didn't use the cords/emulsion when I tried FGMO. It was the first alternative substance I used when the strips failed to provide an effective treatment. The application method, at that time,was dribbling FGMO on the top bars. I eventually added some essentials oils to the FGMO and used a FGMO soaked blue shop towel as well. So my experience with FGMO is dated.

Using FGMO, in this manner, would hold the mite population in check. It worked as long as the initial mite populations were small and the applications were continously applied. If initial mite populations were high, I experience the results noted in my previous post.

I think two key points need to be followed when using FGMO. First, treatments must be continous and start when mite levels are low. Second, monitoring mite fall is essential to insure treatments remain effective and mite levels haven't increased.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hello folks.
Mike Bush: Thanks for your wonderful contribution regarding J. Fishers ability to insult people. You did well. Thanks for showing the courage to post it!
Mr. Fisher insulted New Zealanders with undue remarks. I posted a request for him to apologize to New Zealanders but Mr. Fisher opted to ignore my post. Some people seem to think that offending others while making a point is the right thing to do. Do they derive pleasure from making idle comments? ummm!
Enough said, I think.
Best regards and God bless.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------

