# Bee Journal Response



## topbee (Mar 17, 2004)

Did anyone read the article about FGMO in the Bee Journal. It really ticks me off that people try to find things wrong with a solution that doesn't put big money in the drug reps pockets. They are saying that the mites kill is insignificant when using FGMO. Instead of trying to improve the treatment they work to find fault. They are not trying to make beekeeping affordable. With the strips at $2.00 or better a piece or more and there is no guarantees that they will work.

The government is so quick to give the Universities money, why not give Pedro a little to improve his research. Drive on Dr. we all appreciate your efforts.

Thanks

Tony


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

It's big buisness. They want $$$$. They do not care how they make it. As far as something affordable, HA! Thats not good for the bottom line. I think the good Dr is doing a great job. I am quite happy not to use chemicals in my hives. If those companies like chemicals then let them use them aroud thier kids. Not this beekeeper. Honey, comb, and bees are all natural, lets all keep it that way.
Dan


----------



## Tia (Nov 19, 2003)

That's exactly what I said to my husband this morning when I read that article. It's all about money. My bees are doing great and I fog them with FGMO only every five days. I'm finding no varroa on the bees or on drone larva. I'm more than satisfied with FGMO and am well rid of chemicals in my hives.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I think a lot of this is also a misunderstanding of the concept. FGMO is an inert "chemical". People are used to the concept of something like Apistan or Checkmite USED to be where you put it in and ALL the mites fall dead almost immediately. Straight FGMO requires diligent use in order to work effectively. Being an inert chemical that only suffocates some and helps the bees groom some, you get an increase in mite fall. If you look at the mathematical models for mite reproduction ( http://www.csl.gov.uk/science/organ/environ/bee/varroa/ModellingBiologicalApproaches.pdf )
you can see that only small change in the mite fall can make a dramatic difference in the mite population in the long run.

The concept of FGMO is NOT the same as the chemical solutions. The concept is something totally harmless to the bees and humans that helps the bees get rid of the mites. This is not the same as a deadly poison in the hive that is dangerous to bees, dangerous to humans and lethal to mites.


----------



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

Good morning folks from a brrrrrrreazy New Zealand. Yes, you guessed it! I am here making friends and explaining the FGMO concept. 
Although I have have not had the opportunity to read the article in reference,
I can foresee its contents judging from your response. 
Thank you ALL so very much for your response in defense of FGMO. Your statements and The Good Lord's guidance give me continued endurance to look for ways to improve the effectiveness of non-chemicals in the protection of our honey bees. There is no doubt in my mind, and obviously in the minds of many others like you, that Big Bucks are trying hard to discredit FGMO in order that their businesses continue to reap great $ benefits regardless of what chemiclas might be doing to the environment and to our health in general. 
God bless you all for your great support and faith. 
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## JJ (Jun 22, 2004)

HI YALL MY FIRST TIME ON.I AM VERY UPSET WITH THE SO CALLED PROFESSIONAL PEOPLES OPINIONS ON THE FGMO FOGGING. I WROTE JERRY HAYES IN THE JOURNAL AND TOLD HIM THIS IS NOT RIGHT TO DO AS MUCH TIME AS DR. HAS PUT IN THIS FOGGING SYSTEM. THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE TRYING TO HELP INSTEAD OF WORKING AGANIST DRONEBEE. IT MAKES YOU SICK. ANYWAY MY BEES LOOK GREAT AND ARE STRONG. I DONT SEE ALOT OF BEES DEFORMED OR CRAWLING ALL OVER THE GROUND. TAKE CARE


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2004)

WOW, such a response to the article of which I just got in the mail today. I did get the chance to speak with Dr. Delaplane today about itwhen I over heard him say something about an article on FGMO and before I had a chance to read the same.

We did not talk very long on the subject, and it covered more of my experiences with FGMO and the results that I have seen while using it as a control for V. mites. What follows is not/was not discussed by Dr. Delaplane and my self. It is my opinionnothing more.

First, I would like to remind everyone that the article is a discussion of the studied opinion from renowned researchers. This is NOT scientific proof but more of an opinion i.e. hey what do you think about? this is something that is not often given to the public by researchers. For the very reason that you can see or read above and I am sure will be posted afterward. 

Research is very interesting, and research that covers topics about biology (or in this case honey bees) can become quite complex when you start adding in all the different variables that are or can be encountered. (What type of bees/race were you using in your research? What time of year? What type of queen were you using? Where was your hives/research located? What type of weather did you encounter? How was the flow/year? Did you use any other form of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)? Did you do your research on old comb or new? Did you do it during a flow or after a honey flow? How did you get your results? How did you do the research?) I could keep going forever. Just because you have done something and found a result does NOT mean, you have found the (true) answer or that your results are right. The research MUST be repeated and the same results MUST be proven again, and again, and again in order for it to be a proven fact.

In the article, you can see where a few researchers have reported that they are doing test and really have nothing to say until they have results to report. Others have nothing more to say than what they have heard from beekeepers (losing 600 out of 800 hives does make one think), but once again did the beekeepers follow the instructions to the tee? What did or did they not do? Was Dr. Rodriguez notified, so that he could find the answers/problems? In the end, why did the results not follow the same as Dr. Rodriguezs? None of this means that the researcher truly believes that FGMO did not perform as research has shown, but that there are questions to be answered before any true researcher will put there name or reputation on the line. Much less, recommend a treatment to beekeepers that may end up killing off all their hives. 

The article clearly stated that FGMO efficacy record is weak, or at best incomplete. These small simple words may not mean much to you and me but are something different to researchers. Well lets just go back to the last word used incompletelets see what ol Webster has to say about it:

Incomplete - (inkəm pleét) 1.lacking something such as a particular part that properly or desirably belongs with it. 2. not yet finished or fully developed.

Hmmmmmwell looks like somebody needs to look into this a little further. Almost like no one really knows for sure. More research please. The researchers are not trying say it does not work at all but more along the lines that it needs to be looked into more.

I truly enjoyed the commit if you float a rumor that puppy dog droppings will control varroa, you could eliminate a nasty problem from our parks and sidewalks. Well folks I hate to say it but that is a true a statement as they come. If you do not believe me then feel free to go back through some of the post and see what some of us are using or trying for varroa treatments. We have all been there, the strips are scary (or dangerous) at the least. We are tired of paying for the crap that is probably going to kill us one day, and no one wants to hear about the findings of chemicals left behind when mite strips are used. BUT, we can not through the kitchen sink into a bee hive and cry here it is the true answer! It must be reviewed and retested before anyone will say any different.

I really do prefer FGMO to some chemical strip that required me to where protective gear to apply into my hives, but I really like the thought of IPM management. It works real simple. When working though a problem within a system as complex as the honey bee and varroa mites you will never find a answer. There will never come a day when someone will stand on a hill and shout out that they have the answer. IPM is a series of links that help the system control the problem naturally. Now thats something I can understand and the direction I would like to go. The point of IPM is one day you will never have to use any chemical again. So what chemical company will get anything out of that research? 

Yeah, Ill say that I think the Bee Research Labs should work harder for answers, but if we want to blame the labs for taking dollars from the chemical companies then when will the beekeepers of America (you and me) come off the hip and throw a few bucks toward the research that we want? Are we not the ones who will benefit the most from the research? Do we truly love the bees that we talk about so much? Why should we expect the government to solve our problems, even if you do expect them to do you really think they can? Why cant we raise our prices (from bee products) a few pennies and give it to research? Better yet, why not take a day or two of your time and volunteer yourself to them. I know you are thinking, even if I did it no one else would, well yeah but at least you could throw your two cents during a topic and it would be justified...or at least I would listen to what you have to say.

BB


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

Kinda long winded don't you think BB? Bottom line thousands of beekeepers are using FGMO with good success. Kills the idea old comb, time of year, honey flow ...... 
Success world wide is success no mather how you slice it.
Dan


----------



## GA-BEE (Jan 20, 2004)

BB you struck the nail on the head. I agree with what you said we al shouldn't jump to conclusions. I am one beekeeper that will be more than willing to contribute to research done that doesn't promote the use of deadly chemicals, but - show me one. I am not aware of any research, other than Dr. P's, that is being done that isn't being bankrolled by some big chemical company. Alot of the Universities research is funded not only by Big Brother but also by these same chemical companies who 'pressure' the researchers into approving thier products for use. Why doesn't these same research facilities take on the work of Dr. P or do similar independent studies? There is no money in it for them. There isn't the millions to be made from approving a product that you can buy from just about any store shelf (unless you are also vested in that product). It is all about the money - it always is.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2004)

> Did anyone read the article about FGMO in the Bee Journal

Well, it is not an "article", and it was not in a "journal".

a) An "article" would discuss a study or tangible work 
with bees, all I saw was a few quotes from an online
discussion that merited no more respect than a 
discussion thread in this forum might merit.

b) An actual "journal" would be something other than ABJ.
Yes, they call themselves a "journal", but they are
not a legitimate peer-reviewed science journal. They
are merely a magazine for beekeepers. What is published
in ABJ is often wrong, as they do not even fact-check
what they do publish. While legitimate papers do appear
in ABJ, they do so only because the authors got frustrated
with the referee process at one or more legitimate science
journals.

> It really ticks me off that people try to find things wrong 
> with a solution that doesn't put big money in the drug reps pockets

That was NOT the motivation here. Each person offered their
candid and honest opinion, based upon the work they had done. 
It is unclear if they were aware that they would be quoted 
"for publication". I know quite a few of the folks quoted, and
I defy anyone to find another example of any of them making 
statements without specific supporting data.

I suspect that more than one of them are a little angry at Keith 
for publishing their comments as part of his "opinion survey".

> They are saying that the mites kill is insignificant when using FGMO

No, the consensus is that FGMO does not appear to offer "consistent
adequate control". In other words, it certainly may work in some cases
for some people, but will not work every time for each person who
follows the published procedure. Something that works only some of the
time cannot be said to be "effective".

> Instead of trying to improve the treatment they work to find fault.

Trying to "improve" the treatment should not be required if even half
of what has been said about FGMO is true. It has been claimed to be
effective "as is" more than once, and using more than one methodology.

As a personal view from one who used to run a research lab, the 
ever-changing methodology for using FGMO, which has evolved to the point 
where one is told to mix Thymol into the FGMO, is part of the credibility 
problem that PREVENTS this group of researchers from doing extensive studies. 
If the methodology or technique changes between the time one writes an initial 
funding request and the time one is asked to provide a more detailed schedule, 
budget, or whatever, one is embarrassed by the "moving target" aspect of the 
subject matter, and one is honestly concerned about WHICH method one should study.

But, there is room for hope - Keith says that two studies are underway,
and the results of those studies will be available to all.

I'm not saying that FGMO "supporters" are going to like the results of
the studies, I'm just saying that the studies will be fair, accurate,
and interpreted impartially.









> Bottom line thousands of beekeepers are using FGMO with good success. 
> Success world wide is success no matter how you slice it. 

I'd love to hear of anyone who has been using FGMO (or any of the other 
"alternative treatments") for more than a few years. My problem is that 
people who are the most vocal proponents of things like FGMO tend to 
disappear off the face of the Earth after a year or two, and it is unclear 
if they have moved to an undisclosed location, given up beekeeping due to
a lack of interest, or given up beekeeping because their hives kept dying. 
I'd love to go see some hives that have been maintained with nothing but 
FGMO for three to five years, as I'd love to do an article in an attempt 
to find out why FGMO "works for some folks", when it apparently does not 
work for others. There must be a common factor to the "success", if it is real.


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

Bfisher, been a beekeeper 30 + years, 'played' with insects since I was 5, degree in forestry, surveying, designer for NYSDOT, and have a passion for entomology. Don't think I'll go away till the Good Lord calls me away from my bees. Used 'FMGO for three or more years', been reading anything from Dr. Pedro Rodriguez, or what they are doing in Europe past ten years?
Dan


----------



## Alex Cantacuzene (May 29, 2003)

There is an immense amount of thought and passion in the observations on the merits of FGMO and other approaches. No matter how we view them, we should be thankful for all. However, we should also recognize that the "Silver bullet" in the eradication of Varroa will not appear in the near future, there are too many variables. The work that is done by individuals like Dr. Rodriguez is commendable and has helped many of us to keep this pest in check and I personally appreciate it. I also believe that industry has an eye on profits and that is understandable but it can go overboard at times and so we should make our own choices and the chaff will fall from the wheat. We are also a checkered lot, from hobbyist to large producer and we can all learn from each other and evaluate all of these efforts on their own terms. Take care and have fun


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

Did leave out that I insiminate my bees, and have been comunication with Susan Cobey, Gleen Apiaries, Can-Am Apiaries, and Strachan Apiaries, Dyce Lab, Batton Ruge, Ohio Breeders, and Mr James Tew. This is just a few people that I am working with. I also am working toward a bee (my area -30F winters with 7 feet of snow) that has shown resistance to the mite, deseases, tolerant of people and getting LOTS of honey. Before the mite hit I ran an operation of 100 hives that I also breed queens for. I hope that clears up the notion that I am a Johnny come lately. Bees been in the family from 1850 (Russa) and now here. Anyway enjoy the 'hobbie' and the fun of keeping bees. They are aways a challenge.
Dan


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Greetings,

Jim said:
>I'd love to hear of anyone who has been >using FGMO (or any of the other 
>"alternative treatments") for more than a >few years. My problem is that 
>people who are the most vocal proponents >of things like FGMO tend to 
>disappear off the face of the Earth after >a year or two, and it is unclear 
>if they have moved to an undisclosed >location, given up beekeeping due to
>a lack of interest, or given up beekeeping >because their hives kept dying. 

I've had bees on small cell for since 2000. After the initial shake down problems varroa mites have been a non-issue. The commercial guys around me have lost a large portion of their hives, yet my hives are thriving without treatment.

I have shared my results with the various bee groups and hope that some beekeepers are benefited by my experience. My results were met with scepticism and additional conditions for success were upgraded. When these conditions were met, it got real silent on some of the lists. One fellow finally suggested that I should 'prove' that it would be profitable in his commercial operation!

Since then, I find no need and spend no time reading or writing about mite issue. I have purged my filing cabinet of all mite related stuff. I no longer count mites or deal with screened bottom boards, etc. Varroa mites are no more important to me than any of the other bee diseases/problems.

So I too have faded into the background. Not because of a mite control failure but because of its success. My biggest problems now are swarming, the drought, etc.

I've had zero winter loss and no dinks for three years. I've produced a 100 to 140lbs of honey per hive which is double the local average. As a hobbiest I am swamped with both honey and bees.

My goal is to reduce my hive count to 5 hives and keep it there. And that's not easy for a ex-commercial beekeeper :> )

Regarding FGMO, I tried it on a few hives back when Dr. R was on Bee-L. At that time dribbling was recommended. I used a saturated blue shop towel which was replaced every few weeks. Mite populations didn't expand with this method. But miss a treatment and mite populations would rapidly expand as can be expected with most of the mites reproducing in the sealed brood.

Just like the professional people in the article, I have no experience with fogging FGMO. And like them, I have my own opinion that fogged FGMO still has the same limitations as did the dribbled FGMO. Adding essential oils are an effort to address these limitations. I added essential oils to my blue shop towel tests but found other negative side-effects, especially with queen rearing.

Regards
Dennis
Thinking an opinion is just an opinion no matter WHO says it, even me :> )


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Greetings,

It's interesting to watch what happens with FGMO as I've seen much the same with small cell. The parents of both are very vocal and highly enthusiastic. They are very proud of their 'childern' and often speculate/extrapolate concerning it.

When their 'child' is 'threatened', they are usually defensive and often combative. Any criticism of their 'baby' is almost always taken personally.

And if any dispute arises concerning the 'childs' behavior, the family and friends rise to defend that child no matter what the behavior. We's either fer um or agin em :> )

Treat the child unfairly and look out. It's war with victims, martyers, the enemy, interantional conspiricy, etc. Peoples motives are impuned.

And the reality of the child with all its strengths and deficiencies isn't seen for what it is. One group sees only faults and the other can see none.

Now I'm really in trouble, huh :> ))))

Regards
Dennis
Thinking my opinions might count if I had a degree in internet psychology. 

[This message has been edited by topbarguy (edited June 23, 2004).]


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2004)

<Bottom line thousands of beekeepers are using FGMO with good success. Kills the idea old comb, time of year, honey flow ......>

I agree with the success we hear about but there are numerous reports where commercial beekeepers and side line beekeepers have lost their hives when they went to FGMO. The article even mentioned that one beekeeper lost 600 hivesthat is anything but success. So the question remains what happened? Was it the FGMO, the beekeeper or some other outside condition? I know one beekeeper who uses FGMO throughout the year then throws in strips when ever he has a high mite count. Then tells everyone how great FGMO works. 

The idea of old comb, time of year, honey flows can and do make a big difference in the mite levels, and other diseases. Research has shown that EFB & AFB are not that devastating to colonies that are going through a flow. Mites buildup much stronger in the late summer and fall of the year. Old comb may still has chemicals that were used beforeit may not be much but with the aid of FGMO it is just enough.

<I am not aware of any research, other than Dr. P's, that is being done that isn't being bankrolled by some big chemical company. Alot of the Universities research is funded not only by Big Brother but also by these same chemical companies who 'pressure' the researchers into approving thier products for use. >

The UGA bee lab is actively researching SMR, and hygienic breeding stock in their breeding program. UGA did a study on screen bottom boards. I really dont want to speak for the bee lab but Im willing to bet if you came to them with an idea that you wanted to test they would help you any way they could, or do the research themselves. I know of several research programs that were conducted in the past 3 years where the idea came to them from average ol beekeepers like you and me.

Yes money does rule the world, but like I said they can only get it where it is given out. UGA only pays the researchers salary. Every other penny for research comes from grants, or donations. 
<Well, it is not an "article", and it was not in a "journal".>
Thank you Jim, I did not want to quote everything you wrote.

I have used FGMO for the past 3 or 4 years. I also use screen bottom boards, small cell and pick SMR, hygienic stock. So which one should I recommend to my beekeeping friends? I did start out with FGMO and it did keep some of my worst varroa infested hives in the world from dieing by killing off the mites. All of this before I went to small cell or screens. But Im slowly backing away from FGMO (I still think it is too strong a chemical) and am sticking with my queens, small cell, and screen boardsi.e. no chemicals. Two of which were researched at bee labs, and one is in the planning.

BB


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The article even mentioned that one beekeeper lost 600 hivesthat is anything but success.

I also know of a beekeeper around here who used Apistan religiously and lost all 300 or so of his hive to the mites. Does this mean that Apistan is not a valid treatment for mites? Does it mean that Apistan is not effective against mites?

Anyone who uses ANY treatment and does not monitor the outcome, at least until there seems to be no need to monitor anymore (topbarguy), is just being foolish.

You can't know if it's working, whether it's Apistan, Checkmite or FGMO if you don't monitor the results. You're just blindly driving down the road with the windshield covered and hoping you don't crash.


[This message has been edited by Michael Bush (edited June 23, 2004).]


----------



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

Hello folks.
Thanks for all your contributions to the forum. I appreciate your "opinions" as many of you call your posts, since they contribute to disclose facts that would otherwise not be published. 
My turn for my opinion.
FGMO has slowly but surely become known world-wide by its merits. It has grown to such a degree that it is beginning to frighten big bucks into scare tactics, hence publication of "opinions" against FGMO. 
Wny? FGMO is not doing any damage to anyone, on the contrary, it is doing what it was designed to do: to offer a cost-effective alternative means for mite control to every little beekeeper world-wide. All my work has been self financed. I have dedicated hours on end calling on Governement and private institutions attermpting to get funding and all doors have been closed claiming there are no funds available. 
I have dedicated unlimited hours and money sending e-mails and making phone calls to "researchers" offering to cooperate in some form of effort with their institution to no avail. 
I have personally visited a teaching institution seeking to become a "partner" in their honey bee study group and was turned down outright.
If there is as much sincerity as it is claimed in the afore mentioned posts, why am I being denied at least the courtesy of a reply to a phone call?
Coersion and outright vias? 
Time and again, I have offered to share my procedure with any/all that are willing to visit my hives. 
FGMO research is unsophisticated, simple and un-assumming. My findings have been offered to the public as pure and unadulterated as they have been tested. They will continue to be so in an effort to find cost-effective alternative treatment of honey bee parasites. 
I also have a question. 
Why would those who fail to respond to
e-mails, fail to answer phone calls, fail to reply to messages left in their answering machines, suddenly be so apt to "give their opinions" against FGMO?
My partners and I have hundreds of hives under FGMO treatment in Spain. You are all welcome to visit our facilities. We will gladly provide a tour, a gourmet lunch with fine Spanish wine guaranteed.
Best regards and God bless.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Michael,

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Beekeepers as a lot tend to treat to avoid diseases/pests with few understanding the disease/pest process. It's just easier to stick a tetra patty or a strip in. No need to diagnose or monitor the results.

Surprise. The commercial guys around here have lost way more than 600 hives over the last few years using both types of strips.

Regards
Dennis
Now knowing more about mites than I ever cared to.


----------



## WineMan (May 16, 2003)

guess i didnt find the opinions voiced in the magazine to be so bad. just read it this afternoon before seeing this thread.

what i took away was a concern regarding the potential for abusing other chemicals by using the fog as a delivery agent.


----------



## ox (May 15, 2004)

I for one am interested in your success. I went to the URL associated with your name and got a 404? What have you published on the net? URL? 

------------------
the ~ox-{ at www.singingfalls.com


----------



## Russ (Sep 9, 2001)

College's and University's are like Politics, They follow the money trail. If we only knew the truth like has be previously stated these instutitions reli on the money that the large companys provide behind the scenes. Kinda like the Drug company's bankrolling the Medical schools. Nuff said.


----------



## Oxankle (Jan 8, 2004)

Well, a very interesting article. 

As you all know, aeronautical engineers agree that the bumble bee cannot fly, but the little beast ignores them and wings her way just about anywhere she wishes to go,

FGMO seems to be designed a lot like the bumble bee. 

Now, I do have a couple of concerns: Dr. R. worked with this stuff until he found a delivery system that seems to do the trick. We use a commonly available propane fogger, mass produced and having a plastic tip that emits a fog having (supposedly) diameters of l5 to 25 microns. 

My concern is that like everything else mass produced, the fog particle diameter may vary from nozzle to nozzle. I doubt that Burgess spends a lot of time on tolerances or quality control on this one point. 

In addition, if my fogger is "crowded" with too much oil too fast, the particle size changes.

Finally, on windy evenings it is hard to keep the flame high enough to ensure that the coils are red hot when the oil trigger is squeezed; same result as "crowding" the fogger. 

In short, there is one variable beyond the individual's control. Is nozzle uniformity a concern?

The application technique is within the user's control, but each of us may vary a bit. How critical is this? 

In summary, I am using FGMO weekly and my bees look great. I'll know more about this in Sept. after the expected mite surge in August. In the meantime, I am going to listen closely to Dr. R. if he has advice on any of the issues pertaining to FGMO and its use.
Ox


----------



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

Hello folks.
Thanks Ox and all other users.
There is no doubt in my mind that this opinionted article in ABJ, is just that an opinionated article. FGMO users who read it should give it the value that it deserves, zilch. I hope that others that read it, pay as much attention to it as it deserves, nich, nada, zero. Let the opinion mongers continue to get their highs on the fat donations to promote the chemiclas that are contaminating our envirnoment. Stick to non-chemicals as FGMO and natural plant extracts and rest assured that you wont be one of those who contribute to our demiss. 
I know that my recommendations wont be smong those. And as it says in The Holy Book, "Let those who have no sins throw the first stone." 
Best regards and God bless.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

Dear Dr Keith Delaplane in your summery paper on Food Grade Mineral Oil for Varroa Control you stated 'Half of the hives were treated with menthol (grease boards on the bottom, applied twice on the bottom board with a 10 day interval) and the others were treated with the fogger at the manufacturer's suggested rates.' Very impressive but with what fogger? One used in an apple orchard? What manufacturer's rates? Umteen % at x concentration? My Black flagg propane fogger had no such instuctions. As they use to say SHOW ME THE BEEF, or SHOW ME NUMBERS. As a Dr I assumed that you have written papers before in school. Did you not show refrences, methods, etc? Please do that in the next ABJ issue. This way MAYBE you can get my respect. To blindly make this or that statements without backup to support you statements well...... 
Dan


----------



## Bob Russell (Sep 9, 2003)

Have just received the article written by DR.Keith Delaplane in the July 2004 issue of ABJ PAGE 519 " Food Grade Mineral for varroa control-An Association of Professional Apiculturists' Discussion" and recommend you get a copy and read it carefully.DR.Pedro is currently visiting New Zealand and will have the opportunity at some stage today to read it himself.If I was a young scientist I would be tapping ito DR.Pedro Rodriguez's 60 years practicle experience with bees.He has the professional quaulifications and is willing to share his knowledge and encourages trials to his protocol.
Bob Russell
New Zealand
Commercial Beekeeper


----------



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

Hello folks.
I love refrains. The one that comes to mind right now is "something smells in Holland." or sort of like that.
Re: the "opinion" article in ABJ.
I say, and then the so called scientists have the unmittigated gall to say that I do not use scientific methodology. Bunk!
Thank you Ox. Your "opinion" hit the nail on the head as many are saying.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



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

Hello folks.
Another saying, a Spanish one.
"The worst mute-deaph person is he who does not want to hear or see."
My writings have been crossed referenced from day one when I started writing to Bee-L.
My findings have been published world-wide and read by beeakeepers and non-beekeepers all over the world as proved by e-mails and posts to this forum arriving from all points on planet Earth, yet "some" have the audacity to claim that they have not seen data, proof of findings, and now insignificant results. Obviously they will claim that they have not seen the gas chromatography residue analysis for Food Grade Mineral Oil and for thymol that have been made public on the internet. Will they have the temerity to say that the analysis are not valid because they have been performed by laboratories in Spain? 
Careful fellows, Spain is not a third world country!
Best regards and God bless.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

Glad you said that Dr R. That was that I was trying to tell that author of that paper, SHOW ME THE BEEF. No numbers just hear say. Peopel (including me) that are professionals know that is the worst thing you can do with a paper, is use hear say and no hard numbers. This guy said that, that guy said this, and I say humm. Well how can you base anything without having real numbers and fact. You can say so and so said this. I went and tried out his meathod used this % of that with this type of equipment used it over a one year period applied it x number of times over the year and my observations are and I have concluded ......
Now thats a paper thats worth something. I hope that Dr Keith Delaplane rethinks his paper and does some better observations with fact. I have read your articles Dr R and you have provided a lot of info and obsevation with facts. I do not see where Dr D is coming from but it does look like 'big business' is upset with your FGMO and the low cost to save hives. Thier main consern is $ and the beekeepers need to buy thier product in ever increasing doses. They want a consumer to depentent on thier expensive meds. We beekeepers are also to blame, we sell honey, we if you like honey and you eat it then you have to buy more. And so the cycle continues. Consumer eats honey, needs more, buys more etc. The chemical companies would love that cycle if we do it thier way.
Just think about that.
Dan


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2004)

Sorry, but I try to stomp hard on this
specific nugget of folklore whenever
I see it, as beekeepers should not be
guilty of making such errors.

> As you all know, aeronautical engineers 
> agree that the bumble bee cannot fly, but 
> the little beast ignores them and wings 
> her way just about anywhere she wishes to
> go...

The statement above is a prime example of
why internet discussion groups are avoided
by the bulk of people doing legit research.

The old wives tale/urban legend about some
highly educated person or other (engineer
in some story, scientist in another) working
out that a bumble bee "can't fly" is BUNK.

This myth comes from a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, 
who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer. 
The equation proved that the maximum lift for an aircraft's wings could not 
be achieved at equivalent speeds of a bee. So, an airplane the size of a bee, 
moving as slowly as a bee, could not fly. Although this did not mean a bee 
can't fly (which after all does not have stationary wings), the impression that 
Magnan's book said bees shouldn't be able to fly began to spread.

How this became a "fact" among the gullible I have no idea. 

The aerodynamic equations that explain airplane flight are based on the lift possible 
with a FIXED-wing design. The fact that a fixed-wing airplane the size and shape 
of a bee (bumble or honey, makes no difference which) will not fly has no impact at 
all on the more complex "flapping-wing" flying of insects.

The mistaken impression about bee flight has remained a popular "fact" among the set 
of people who want to argue that alleged "loopholes" in physics are somehow valid 
"evidence" that the supernatural is the underlying stuff of the universe. Whether that 
supernatural agent is a deity, astrology, the Good Fairies, or aliens from Uranus, physics 
must first be shown to be "wrong" so that wild impossibilities can be presented as somehow 
more credible. (Never mind that proving that someone else is mistaken does not imply that 
one's own theory is correct, but that is yet another basic error made by these folks.)


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

jfischer, very well put. My gripe is that I do not care about hear say evidence but wish a person would first try for himself if the method works, just like science lab in college, there is a precise method to do studies - papers - thesis work. I have gone thru this process when I went to college. As a professional we all know what would become of our 'paper' if we used hear say evidence and not support it in a maner that can be reproduced over and over again using the same methodology. I also do not like to be lumped or assumed to be a nobody. Everyone on this planet has something to give to it. Nothing thats here is for granted. Dr R has published paper after paper on how when and what results were attained, here and in other parts of the world. This other person has not, in my opinion, done that. Enough said, and please before you throw stones at a person take into account that they may have some good in them and may have something of value to say. I know if I had to go to court for any of my designs or for any of my surveys using hear say evidence to back me up I would lose before I even started to present my case. I have to use things that can be repeated and have proven themselves over time.
Dan


----------



## fat/beeman (Aug 23, 2002)

WHERE'S THE BEEF? I can't none sayers believe what you want but the good Dr has gotten it right. as a commercial beekeeper useing the fogger method I have no mites and my bees are in thew best shape in yrs. I shake my hives on a regular basis for packages with no ill effects.my statement would be to none blievers to come see for your self lot of hives no mites=so if it didn't work why so many healthy hives? I have been chemical free since 1992 and hope to be for long time to come.I have tried to explain to Dr Delaplane my findings and his responce( it has not been tested or proven)
I love your great work Dr. pedro keep on trucking=====Don


----------



## Oxankle (Jan 8, 2004)

JFischer:

Sorry about the bumblebee. I take it all back except that the FGMO seems to be working. 

If it works for the Doc, it works for Fat/Beeman and it works for me I consider that empirical evidence enough to continue for a while. 

In the meantime, you fellows continue working away at genetics and small-cell, etc and find some alternatives. If you find one cheaper, more practical, more convenient and less environmentally hazardous I'm sure we will all switch. Certainly we would prefer not to have to fog, but we prefer fog to poisons. 
Ox


----------



## topbee (Mar 17, 2004)

Wow! I step away for a couple of days and to my surprise the response received on this topic.
My intent was not to bad talk Dr. D., but I was just upset by the lack of desire or interest to use something that is indicating good results and try to make it better. We all strive to keep our cost down in both our hobbies and our businesses, but if someone is striving to make a non-chemical way of treating bees than why not.

Every year I get more and more people asking if I use chemicals and every year I have to tell them yes. When Dr. R. discovered the use of FGMO on mites, I thought what the heck it couldn't hurt. I have used Apistan and grease patties for as long as I have been in bees, about 15 years and still lost hives. Lets acknowledge and promote success and new ideas, not tear them down.
Thanks Dr. R. for all your efforts and desire to make beekeeping a little less frustrating.

Tony


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

Sure topbee now you show up. Just like a kid with bees and a stick (or beekeeper looking to harvest honey) Sturup the hive and leave. Come back later and say wow. 
Good topic though and lots of responce from everyone. 
Dan


----------



## WineMan (May 16, 2003)

ive never quite figured out why fgmo seems to put people in such divided camps. i generally believe that most things in beekeeping arent clear cut one way or the other. we as beekeepers always seem to want that to be the case so we can understand what is going on but usually the hive is a dynamic situation with many multiples all interacting at once.

im curious if anyone has any ideas why fgmo (plain, no thymol) fails in certain cases and appears to work good in others??

ive seen it have a positive impact (or so i think---defined as hives with low mite counts and as shown on sticky boards after fogging compared to pre-fogging) and ive seen it fail miserably (defined as hives full of mites).

i have some guesses on what might be going on but wondering what others think.


----------



## Scotty (May 17, 2004)

Perhaps you're thinking of "Something's rotten in the State of Denmark" ?

------------------
-Scotty

Weekly progress of my hive(s): http://bees.total-x.org


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>im curious if anyone has any ideas why fgmo (plain, no thymol) fails in certain cases and appears to work good in others??

All I know is that the success or failure of many things in beekeeping are the results of many small details. The details of the application of the method, the details of the climate, the weather, the particular strain of bee, the particular strain of the mites, etc.

When a local beekeeper here loses 300 hives when carefully following the same routine he has done for at least a decade with Apistan, why does it fail? Well in this case it could be the mites are resistant. It could be that conditions in the hive were just right to favor the mites. It could be that some nearby hives crashed and his bees robbed them out and brought a lot of mites home. I don't know for sure.

Most of these are also possibilities when any other method, such as FGMO, or Checkmite, or whatever fails.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2004)

The take-away message from the article for
me was the mention of not one, but TWO
different studies of FGMO in progress.

Say what you like about the personal views
of this one or that one, but at least give
credit where credit is due. They are 
willing to allocate scarce funds and limited
time/resources to attempt to replicate the 
techniques, and see for themselves if there
is a significant difference in hives treated
with FGMO.


----------



## Oxankle (Jan 8, 2004)

I suppose I am going to have to get my hands on some bee mag subscriptions. 

What is this about the article saying "at the manufacturer's suggested rates", and "at ten day intervals" Are the fogger manufacturers now telling us how to apply FGMO to our bees?

If the egghead crowd wanted to evaluate the efficacy of FGMO, why did they not use the methods and procedures specified by Doc R? As best I understand it, FGMO is not an overnight, miracle cure, but a steady, progressive endeavor. 

Now: does anyone have any opinions on the possible effect of fog particle size variances? Has anyone investigated the tolerances/variation that might exist between fog nozzles on the Burgess foggers? 

How critical is application technique? Burner heat? Frequency of application? Topside ventilation when fogging? 

I have noticed that on windy days I cannot fog more than one hive before the burner coils cool down so much that the fog changes character. I get a different fog if I start before the coils are piping hot. If I pump too fast I get a different fog, which gut instinct tells me will be a colder, larger particle. 

There is plenty here to investigate, but there are already plenty of people to say that FGMO works. Now perhaps we should find out why it does not work for some. Alternatively, if it does not work at all just exactly what is it that is keeping Dr R's and other FGMO fans' bees alive? 
Ox


----------



## John Buckner (Mar 27, 2003)

Dear FGMO users,
If you feel you have benefited from Dr. Pedros' research, why not make a small contribution? Any funding is better then no funding at all.
He has given so much and asked for nothing more then a little respect.
That's why I have made a small contribution.

If you choose to do the same, email Dr. R and ask for the address of his Non-Profit Honey Bee corp.

Kindest regards,
Jack


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

There's money available for funding IPM research. I think this round is closed, but here's a link. Wouldn't hurt to find out who the USDA contact is and launch a campaign. After all, it's an election year. 

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/fundview.cfm?fonum=1114


----------



## beegee (Jun 3, 2003)

I think the most troubling aspect of all of this mite treatment mess is that the university and state ag people aren't interested enough in alternative treatments to fund any studies. They are willing to investigate new chemicals that promise success(and maybe funding?). I have yet to treat my bees for mites or AFB or whatever, and if or when I do, it won't be with something that requires a pesticide license to apply. If they die, I'll keep trying to find bees that don't. I think Marla Spivak is on the right track with her hygenic bees. When I told one very experienced beekeeper about my plans to treat with FGMO fogging, he said,"You can do that...," as he condescendingly rolled his eyes.


----------



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

Mr. J. Fisher.
Please forgive me. I do not know if you have a Dr.M's degree to address you as due, since ethics were part of my curriculum during my professional training. 
This contribution at the forum is addressed to you since you have made personal references to my name and profession.

1. You have stated that you would like to "visit" a beekeeping operation in which FGMO was being used. I replied that I would welcome your visit.

2. In a recent letter to The New Zealand Beekeeper magazine, offering your views on FGMO, you made undignified offensive comments to a professional group whom you do not know. 
"one could incite fistfights at beekeepers meetings with less." In your comments on a long list of opinions about FGMO, you have made a glaring error implying that you can "incite" New Zealands beekeepers with your incendiary comments, such as insinuating that New Zealands beekeepers can be misled due to a massive lack of understanding of beekeeping techniques and "translating" for them. 
I say NOT from personal experience having met hundreds of them and visited their apiaries and commercial honey operations. New Zealand beekeepers are generous, kind, hard-working professionals guided by modern technology and expert scientists. New Zealanders have a tacit slogan: CAN DO. NO PROBLEM AT ALL. 
In my opinion, New Zealand beekeepers will make correct judgement and use of appropriate technology to their advantage.
I think that you owe an apology to New Zealand beekeepers in particular and to New Zealand in general. 
Respectfully.
Dr. Pedro Rodriguez


----------



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

Concerned response.
I had decided NOT to get involved in what seems as a glaring and very obvious campaign to discredit the success obtained by those who use food grade mineral oil in beekeeping. 
However, since my good name and professions (Veterinary Medicine and Beekeeping) are being maligned on an international basis, I have decided that it is in my best interest to defend a life-time dedication to public service and defense of nature. I cite comments sent by James Fisher for publication by [email protected]:
"It might be inappropriate for me to poke my nose in from the other side of the planet, but someone has to point out a few things that may be "glaringly obvious" only when viewed from the perspective of a scientist, rather than a beekeeper."
"One could incite fistfights at beekeepers meetings with less."
"In fact, ABJ, is where Pedro Rodriguez has published the bulk of his articles on FGMO! Consideration of the multiple levels of irony in all this is simple to convoluted to express in an e-mail."
"Medhat may have been making a joke too subtle for Keith to recognize as a joke."
"if you float a rumor that puppy dog droppings will control varroa, you could eliminate a nasty problem from our parks and sidewalks."
"Hence the list of potential snake oils is infinite."
" . . . given that many anecdotal (apocryphal?) reports from beekeepers that tend to support the claims of efficacy made by Pedro Rodriguez."
"Such an inelegant chemical bomb seems inconsistent with the IPM message so many of us preach."
"So, I'll suggest that we limit ourselves to giving credence to published studies and comments about specific published studies with actual data and statistical analysis that can be reviewed and critiqued before either dismissing or adopting something out of hand."
I have dedicated a life-time to government service having achieved the grade/rank of High level supervisor for the United Stated Department of Agriculture and Colonel for the United States Army, graduated from the School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsynia, (considered as one with very high ranking in the world) served as a successful veterinary Medical doctor for 42 years, and as a successful beekeeper for 66 years and particiapted in many programs aimed at preservation of our natural resources. 
My work is done at my own expense with participating beekeepers and scientists in foreign countries as demonstrated by multiple reports published in such fora as Bee-L, Bee.source.com and ABJ, a well-respected, international beekeeping magazine (which suddenly has become less than deserving in the minds of some.) My only reason is my love for honey bees and the hope that I may contribute to the preservation of nature and though in a small way, provide a service to humanity.
I seek no rewards and disputes with the established scientific community. I offer my apologies if in any way, form or manner, my reports have seemed offensive to them. There was nor there will be any intention of such. I respect and pay tribute to the work of others and would expect others to respect mine as a professional courtesy without comparing it with foul names and demeaning jokes.
I also would like to pose a question.
During the time when I served the United States Government, I recall that government regulations prohibited the use of government property, government funds, or during governmet paid time, and perhaps other areas for non-official purposes.
Have those regulations changed, or are they still valid? 
Respectfully.
Dr. Pedro P. Rodriguez


----------



## JJ (Jun 22, 2004)

Hey Yall, Well i see Jerry Hayes made another little cut towards FGMO. I dont understand these people, one minute they are saying FGMO doesnt work and then he says that it would take to much time for a big commerical beekeeper to use . Then says well if you do it you must do it ever 4 days not ever 7 days. Well if it dont work why do it at all Jerry. By the way i live in florida and right now my hives look great and also have a friend that his hives look great and we are using FGMO&Thymol.I know beekeepers that are losing hives right now by using Apistan. I havent lost a hive this year yet by using FGMO. Im not saying i dont have mites but i have not lost any hives this year.I know other commerical Beekeepers that are using FGMO&thymol but there not speaking out about it. Oh well it will all work out in the end. I can guess what this next report is going to say in the Bee Journal. Take care JJ


----------

