# fumigillin-b drench method



## Trevor Mansell (Jan 16, 2005)

Does anyone use Fumigillin-b in a drench method on a commercial level? If so how do you mix it?


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

okay, just trying to be funny here, is that like drenching a calf? Do they make tubes small enough? How many litres in the belly?
sorry could not resist, too many years cattle i guess...
i have no answer to your question...sorry


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

mix one 9.5 bottle to five gallons of syrup, one cup per hive.


----------



## nelgknat2001 (May 19, 2007)

I'm not a large commercial beekeeper but do drench my hives with Fumigillin-b. The mixing ratio that keith stated is how I do it. With my drench gun I'm able to measure amounts being applied and at the end of my gun has a broom spraying pattern.


----------



## Trevor Mansell (Jan 16, 2005)

Keith Jarrett said:


> mix one 9.5 bottle to five gallons of syrup, one cup per hive.


How many times do you hit them?


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Trevor Mansell said:


> How many times do you hit them?


Well Trevor, the book says 4 times one week apart, but I do mine a couple times ten days apart.

Trevor, I don't think any of us know, I have had good results at ten days apart.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

There have been various opinions about the ideal concentration of the active ingredient in fumagillan syrup for drenching.

Some beekeepers think that an increased concentration above the recommended mixture for non-drench feeding is indicated. Others think the recommended concentration is fine.

I tend to agree with using the recommended mixture, as I really do not know the effects of forcing bees to ingest a concentrated dose. 

Are there benefits to increased doses? Or are there toxic effects on the bees subjected to a heavier than normal dose? 

Besides being off-label, if there is no proven benefit to using an overly concentrated solution of this expensive (and toxic) drug, why do it?

Theory? Hypothesis? The recommended levels are tested for toxicity and effectiveness. Going outside that band could be risky. 

I realise that the argument can be made that with the normal application, the bees are sitting on treated syrup containing a greater total load of the drug which is consumed over a long period and this way, the bees only hold it for a short time, and the total amount of drug is less.

Consider this, though. Drugs are prescribed for a measured dose over a measured time. If taking an antibiotic, you don't just take five pills right now if the doctor says to take one a day for five days. You would possibly be quite sick and probably not get any extra benefit. Fumigillan is normally taken over time, and the drench idea is based on the idea that a quick shot gets most of the disease right off due to the forced ingestion and then subsequent doses are to hit any residual infection that may have been missed and new infection. It is a theory and depends on the true action of the drug. Apparently it works, so the theory may be correct.

With the drench all the bees get some, and right away, since they all clean one another. With normal feeding, maybe only some bees get the full dose, since they are the ones storing it, but eventually all bees get some as the syrup is consumed, so the distribution is slower and not universal or all at once. Perhaps using the standard method, most bees actually get lower doses than those involved in storing it, but over longer time spans, and that lower dose is apparently effective.

Actually, this is an arguement for not using a highly concentrated ration for dosing, since all the bees are being overdosed.

I'd go with the normal mixture, on the label. As for frequency, I don't think it is critical, but the thing to remember is that once damaged, a bee does not recover, even if new damage is prevented, so the idea is to treat over several generations, although I have heard good comments about single treatments.

Check out

http://tinyurl.com/d2tkdb

http://www.medivet.ca/medivet/guidelines/Fumagilin-B%20US%20imperial.pdf

http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman/fumidilb.html


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

Having seen Keith's bees I would say the proof is in the pudding as they say. Medivet has been advertising a 75 fold safety margin on the dose lately.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

JBJ said:


> Having seen Keith's bees I would say the proof is in the pudding as they say. Medivet has been advertising a 75 fold safety margin on the dose lately.


Are you saying 75 X the dose? Could you expand on that a bit?

I'll be talking to Medhat shortly and get caught up on his latest thoughts.

I wrote to Steve Pernal to try to get his experimental results, since he tried various doses.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>my drench gun I'm able to measure amounts being applied and at the end of my gun has a broom spraying pattern. 


great idea!

One advantage of using this method for spring time treatments is this treatment totally eliminates the risk of contaminating the summer honey crop.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

In Medivet's recent add on pg 6 of Bee Culture, Jan issue it states "Non-toxic to bees--75 fold safety margin"

I am not advocating one way or the other, although I would rather not have to use the stuff, however it would be foolhardy to let Nosema rage unchecked through an entire operation. I have stated many times that I believe we will have many alternatives to Fumagillan now that we understand it to be a fungus and not a protozoa. For starters we already have Nosevit at fraction of the cost and derived from tree bark tannins. I suspect tea tree and other fungicidal oils may hold some promise. I also hope that we can isolate Nosema tolerant stocks and actually isolate the traits involved in the bee genome.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Thanks. I guess I did not read very well .

I understand now. Anyhow, I'm looking further into it, since there seems to be a lot of assuming going on and Steve and Adony have done the work. I expect to see them both on the 10th and 11th.

*BEEKEEPING FOR THE FUTURE IPM WORKSHOP*
*Tuesday and Wednesday February 10 - 11, 2009*
Registration includes lunch and coffee for both days, $152.25 (One Canadian dollar is 80c US)
Room Rates $109 Group 4990
Executive Royal Inn, West Edmonton
10010 – 178 Street
Edmonton AB T5S 1T3
780 484 6000
Toll Free 1.800.661.4879​ 
BTW, everyone from everywhere is welcome. If anybody has never seen snow, here's a great chance. Edmonton in February!

International flights come to Edmonton from the major airports all over the U.S., and usually there are top-flight speakers. There is also some local content, though, but the famous West Edmonton Mall is nearby.

Actually, here is the agenda. I don't see the Beaverlodge crew on there, but I do see some other interesting speakers.

http://albertabeekeepers.org/documents/BeekeepingfortheFuture2009agendadraft.pdf


----------



## Trevor Mansell (Jan 16, 2005)

Keith Jarrett said:


> Well Trevor, the book says 4 times one week apart, but I do mine a couple times ten days apart.
> 
> Trevor, I don't think any of us know, I have had good results at ten days apart.


Thanks, I'll hit them again in 10 days.


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

The reason Keith and all for drenching bees 4 times at 1 week intervals is it is the method that the Spanisish researchers have found to be effective against Nosema Ceranae (pers.comm. with Willy Baumgartner/Medivet). Apparently if you do you this and if your bees had Nosemae Cerana they no longer will have a detectable level of spores.

Jean-Marc


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

From a researcher: 

> Based on our spring 2008 experiment using packages, where we evaluated 0.5, 1 and 2 x label doses, we saw no evidence of increased efficacy with increased dose.

I hope to be able to provide more background shortly, but this seems to indicate that when drenching, the label proportions are adequate when drenching and that using greater concentrations has no beneficial effect, except on the supplier's bottom line


----------



## Reed Honey (Mar 3, 2005)

Allend, these guys IMO are not increasing the dose they are giving the proper dose just using less syrup to carry it.. One 9 gram bottle is still being used to treat around 100 hives.. Someone correct me if I am wrong. Lets try and keep this simple as beekeeping is already tough enough as it is. Kenny


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

In my experience, beekeepers very often get confused when mixing drugs. The various weights and volumes and conversions are a minefield, and sometimes instrructions are incomplete or require assuming, and we all know about assumptions...

I have talked to beekeepers, not becessarily here, who think they need to base the mixture on so much per colony and not so much per gallon (or liter). 

The conversation I am having with the researcher seems to me to indicate that there is no advantage to that, but language can be ambiguous, so I am double-checking. So far, it appears that mixing according to the label -- so much drug to so much syrup -- is adequate.


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

By my calculations, you would need to use one 9.5 gm bottle in 6 gallons of syrup and then treat at the rate of 1 cup per hive to be very close to the same dose. By using 5 gallons of syrup they are increasing the dosage per hive by about 18%.

9.5gm / 80 cups X 1 cup/hive = .11875 gm/hive

9.5gm / 96 cups X 1 cup/hive = .09895 gm/hive


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Well, here's where the confusion comes in. 

Check out http://www.drugs.com/vet/fumagilin-b-soluble-powder-can.html
and 
http://www.medivet.ca/medivet/guidelines/Fumagilin-B%20US%20imperial.pdf

I presume that by a 9.5 g jar, people mean the 1lb bottle. 

Each 1 lb jar contains:Fumagillin (as bicyclohexylammonium fumagillin) 9.5 g

According to label and recommendations, one such jar goes into 100 gallons of syrup.

Water-----FUMAGILIN - B------Sugar---------To treat

165 L------454 g -------------330 kg --------100-110 package colonies or 50 wintering colonies

35 L-------96 g---------------69 kg----------22 package colonies or 12 wintering colonies

8.7 L------24 g---------------17 kg----------5-6 colonies

1.8 L------5 g----------------3.6 kg----------1 colony

For N. ceranae, the Spanish recommend 4 applications of fumagillin, each application in 250 mL of syrup in a bag placed on the top bars. Each application contains 30 mg of active ingredient for a total of 120 mg of active ingredient applied per colony. They suggest this confers control for ceranae for six months.

This is a higher concentration than the label concentration, but a lower per colony dose than 190 mg /colony for wintering and higher than 95 mg / colony for packages.


----------



## Reed Honey (Mar 3, 2005)

Allend, I too am having troubles and for me you are way confusing this issue.. Have you ever heard of the KISS method (keep it simple stupid) IMO this is where we as beekeepers should keep this instead of all the back and forth..Lets go with what works and go with the ones that truley have done well with there methods.. I am also like JBJ if you look at what Keith Jarrett has done this is all backed with facts and figures and bees to prove it.. ONce again I normally dont get involved with this type of post but it hits me right between the eyes as I am fighting the dirty bug in a big way right now.. Kenny


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

If you are not interested, please just skip this message. Thanks.

Personally. I am interested because I used the drench method commercially at least ten or maybe twenty years ago, before it was respectable, and I know the guy who started it, AFAIK. The optimal concentration has been a big question mark as long as it has been in use. There are currently a number of studies going on and several conflicting recommendations out there. Moreover this could technically be construed as an off-label usage.

I haven't seen Keith's numbers, beyond what he posted below, or any documentation, so I would be glad to be pointed to them. 

Maybe I'm wrong, but given the price of fumigillan, I should think most commercial beekeepers would be interested to know if they need to boost or lower the dose.

Anyhow, here is some correspondance with Steve Pernal, (Beaverlodge Research Station) which he says I can share. Some of you might want to contact him if you have information.
---

> I should have some data on the drench technique this spring as we used that as a treatment in fall trials (i.e. fall 2008). I have concerns about using a low volume syrup treatment in the fall as it may have less "staying power" in the hive over the winter.

> Based on our spring 2008 experiment using packages, where we evaluated 0.5, 1 and 2 x label doses, we saw no evidence of increased efficacy with increased dose. We applied fumagillin as icing sugar dustings, in pollen patties and in syrup. Basically all worked, perhaps with the exception of some delayed effciacy on some of the patty treatments. 

> For N. ceranae, the Spanish recommend 4 applications of fumagillin, each application in 250 mL of syrup in a bag placed on the top bars. Each application contains 30 mg of active ingredient for a total of 120 mg of active ingredient applied per colony. They sugges this confers control for ceranae for six months.

> I don't have the answers yet, but I would predict we may have to get into a paradigm by which we may have to control in the spring and fall. The spring treatments will have the additional concern of not contaminating honey, which is why we have been looking at different application methods.

> I anticipate running fall and spring efficacy experiments for nosema for at least 2 to three more years. I would be very interested in knowing if there appears to be a treatment that is being informally adopted by beekeepers, so that I can include it as a comparative treatment in experiments.

> Randy Oliver will be at Medhat's IPM symposium in Feb. He may have some insight from the U.S. as well.

> Steve.
>
> Stephen F. Pernal, Ph.D.
>
> Research Scientist | Chercheur
> Beaverlodge Research Farm | Ferme de recherche de Beaverlodge
> Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada | Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada
> P.O. Box 29 | C.P. 29, 1 Research Road
> Beaverlodge, AB T0H 0C0
> [email protected]
> Telephone | Téléphone 780-354-5135
> Facsimile | Télécopieur 780-354-8171
> Teletypewriter | Téléimprimeur 613-759-7470
> Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Allend, I too am having troubles and for me you are way confusing this issue.. Have you ever heard of the KISS method (keep it simple stupid)


I dont agree, we are treating our hives with an antibiotic, that potentially is very harmful to a certian demagrafic of people who might ingest it.( hearing so from fellow beekeepers on this fourm) We have to get this right if we are going to treat with it effectively. If there is any confussion out there, youd better get it sorted out,
going right to the source of production to get recommended treatments, or to fellows who research the dosages and its effects on bees and residual levels, id probably the best route to clarify any confussion,


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

After reading this last page...... WOW...

Gene is right, my load is a little hot at five gallons but I do three treatments ten days apart (for saving labor) also my hives are fairly strong with bees.

P.S. Trevor, are you the guy that started this.  lol


----------



## Trevor Mansell (Jan 16, 2005)

Keith Jarrett said:


> After reading this last page...... WOW...
> 
> Gene is right, my load is a little hot at five gallons but I do three treatments ten days apart (for saving labor) also my hives are fairly strong with bees.
> 
> P.S. Trevor, are you the guy that started this.  lol


Thanks ,I think. 

So do you do a cup each time?


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Well, don't panic anyone. I don't think any harm is being done, although on BEE-L they are talking about fumigilan suppressing the immune system in mammals, the fact that fumigilan sets bees back, and the search for an alternate -- and the fact that there is no MRL for fumigilan in many countries, making it verboten there.

Steve Pernal has taken the approach in his studies that the goal is to deliver the same total dose to a colony in several shots to be consumed in a short period, as we would deliver in two gallons of syrup to be consumed over winter. That is what it seems beekeepers are doing too. 

I'm debating that point, but he is a trained and experienced scientist and I am not, so if it turns out you are using more than necessary, at least you are in good company.

I hope to have more. Stay tuned.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Trevor Mansell said:


> Thanks ,I think.
> 
> So do you do a cup each time?


Hey Trevor, yes, a cup every ten days.

But watch out for barney five, he may disagree.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Well, this question got me looking around. In addition to talking to Steve, I got some input from Randy. In that regard he directed me to http://www.scientificbeekeeping.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63

I'm afraid his experiment did not prove what we all assume it should. Why? Nobody knows.


----------



## mbholl (Dec 16, 2007)

*Keith - Method of drenching?*

Keith,

What is your technique for drenching? Drizzle from top? I can't imagine commercial guy removing and applying (spray/splash) to each frame?
Do you have a problem with syrup running out bottom of hives? 

At Reno convention, presenters seem to contradict the Spain findings - Conclusion seemed to be that fumaB is hard on bees. Stressed testing. 

I saw the pictures of your bees - and WOW! Doesn't seem like it's hurting yours.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Well, don't panic anyone. I don't think any harm is being done, although on BEE-L they are talking about fumigilan suppressing the immune system in mammals

That seems a mild side effect compared to the reasons it's illegal in most of the world, which is that it blocks blood vessel formation by binding to the enzyme methionine aminopeptidase. This targeted gene disruption of methionine aminopeptidase 2 results in an embryonic gastrulation defect and endothelial cell growth arrest. In other words it is a teratogen (causes birth defects). It is currently being tested as a treatment for cancer because it interferes with the tumor's ability to develop a good vascular system which inhibits its growth because it has no food supply.


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

*Kiss*

Kenny I can understand your frustration. So assuming the spaniards are correct then they are saying 1 bottle treats 80 hives (79.166 hives) They also say treat 4 times at one week apart. I'm pretty sure my math is correct.

To do this 1 bottle fumagillin to 20 gallons of syrup. Feed 1 cup/week for 4 weeks.

9.5 g = 9500 mg
9500mg/120mg per hive= 79.166 hives (see post #21 for total dosage of 120 mg per hive)

This means you want 30 mg per treatment (1 cup per week for 4 weeks) for a total of 120mg.

So if you took 320 cups of syrup (5 gallons) and gave each hive 1 cup it would get: 9500mg of fumigillin per bottle/320 cup= 29.6875 mg of fumigillin per hive. That's close enough to 30 mg by my books. Works real well on the KISS principle.

Do this 4 times at weekly intervals and apparently you're bees are good for 6 months, at least in Spain. I think my brain needs a siesta.


Jean-Marc


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

The Spaniards did not use drench, did they? I understood they used bags. I assume the release rate coiuld be different.

And I must say Michaels' comments are noteworthy.


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

The spaniards did use bags and that would necessitate an inner cover at least. Not everybody uses that piece of equipment. Now I'm not sure why they used baggies. They are easy to place over the cluster at the precise place. From what I hear bees will not syrup if heavily infected with Nosema Ceranae so beekeepers resort to drenching. I'm not sure if the Spaniards did this. I thought they did but again not sure. I would think that drenching would give a good distribution of the syrup, provided it did not end up on the bottom board.

Jean-Marc


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> The spaniards did use bags and that would necessitate an inner cover at least. Not everybody uses that piece of equipment. Now I'm not sure why they used baggies. They are easy to place over the cluster at the precise place. From what I hear bees will not syrup if heavily infected with Nosema Ceranae so beekeepers resort to drenching. I'm not sure if the Spaniards did this. I thought they did but again not sure. I would think that drenching would give a good distribution of the syrup, provided it did not end up on the bottom board.


Yes. We are all guessing, it seems. Too bad we have to use this drug. The sooner we find alternate solutions that do not involve sacrificing our bees and our livelihood, the better.


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

Well in my recent experience the only thing worse than using fumigillin is not using it. I'm sure we would all welcome an alternative.

Jean-Marc


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

What about Nosevit? It seems like a viable alternative. I suspect there are going to be others since we now understand Nosema to be a fungus and not a protozoa. I suspect Tea tree oil known for its anti fungal properties may be worth exploring also.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

JBJ said:


> I suspect Tea tree oil known for its anti fungal properties may be worth exploring also.


John, been there and am doing that, I'll let you know if anything comes of it .


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

I know it works well on my toes. Thanks for sharing your good apicultural science!


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

JBJ said:


> I know it works well on my toes. Thanks for sharing your good apicultural science!


Got an can of tea tree and it reminds me of the old one gallon feeder tins. Also thymol, I haven't given up hope on that product either, just have to come up with the right method, dosage ect...


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

Keith Jarrett said:


> Got an can of tea tree and it reminds me of the old one gallon feeder tins. Also thymol, I haven't given up hope on that product either, just have to come up with the right method, dosage ect...


I personally believe that thymol works better in combination with other treatments. It works by inactivating the fungal spores, but does nothing to halt the progression of the fungus in an active infection. Any infected bees are still cranking out spores like crazy and unless those spores happen to come in contact with the thymol, they still present a significant danger of allowing the infection to continue (albeit possibly at a slower but still significant rate). Fumigillin-b works exactly the opposite by interfering with the ability of an active infection to produce spores and does little to prevent re-infection by old spores that are still hanging around the hive or are re-introduced into the hive via drift of untreated, infected bees. If you are using both products, it could explain some of your pretty spectacular results.


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

*Gene, what would be the highest dosage of thymol*

that you have fed.
I have fed 1gram/gallon syrup.......makes some colonies cluster on the outside... but seen no damage otherwise. Think recommended dosage in Spain was .44gm/gallon.Also fed fumidil -B seperately in syrup. I understand thymol also hinders varroa developement


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

irwin harlton said:


> that you have fed.
> I have fed 1gram/gallon syrup.......makes some colonies cluster on the outside... but seen no damage otherwise. Think recommended dosage in Spain was .44gm/gallon.Also fed fumidil -B seperately in syrup. I understand thymol also hinders varroa developement


I use 0.25 gram/gallon as a mold preventative. It also happens to coincide with a concentration of 0.44 mM thymol which is what was used in a 3-year study done in Turkey comparing its effectiveness with that of fumidil. I have never used it as a varroa treatment so I can't comment on that. I also use thymolated syrup when I mix my pollen patties, again as a mold preventative. Some have questioned how effective Thymol treatment is on Nosema since the results of the Turkey study have not officially been duplicated. I have chosen to use it over other mold preventatives in the hopes that there is some validity to that study. For a raging verified active Nosema infestation, it still seems that fumidil is the only treatment that provides a more verifiable immediate result.


----------



## beekuk (Dec 31, 2008)

Question, can fumidil be added to syrup that contains thymol,without affecting the effectivness of the fumidil. Would make the treatment even better if they can be combined.


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

beekuk said:


> Question, can fumidil be added to syrup that contains thymol,without affecting the effectivness of the fumidil. Would make the treatment even better if they can be combined.


That is a good question, for which I have no answer. I have envisioned a treatment regime that uses both on an alternating basis, but I think I would be reluctant to combine them in the same syrup without a definitive answer to your question.


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

*thymol and fumidil B study*

http://www.scialert.net/pdfs/pjbs/2005/1142-1145.pdf


----------

