# Fogging thymol with supers on



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Is the practice of fogging thymol when supers are on as recommended by Dr. Pedro safe as far as wax contamination?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Isn't it just speculation on my part, for me to say one way or the other? I have chosen not to use thymol because I don't want it in my hives, but what I think seems irelevant to the facts. The question is can it be detected in the wax after treating, which would prove that it IS there, or it can not be detected which would prove that it is at least so low that it can't be detected









Now if the question is would I use FGMO fog with thymol, then the answer is, I have chosen not to use it with or without the supers on.

I have used plain FGMO and been pleased with the results.


----------



## Kurt Bower (Aug 28, 2002)

Are you asking people to vote on what they feel, what they think or what they know?

Kurt


----------



## JJ (Jun 22, 2004)

I guess my question would be how can anyone say yes or no until there has been another test done to show if it does get into the wax. The Dr. shows a test saying it doesnt. By answering this poll we all would only be giving a opinion. Take care JJ


----------



## JJ (Jun 22, 2004)

If im not mistaking Clint Bemrose also had his wax checked and it came back with no trace of thymol Take care JJ Just got a report from Clints son and he said Clint is still not doing well.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

The question should have read honey contamination instead of wax.

Those of you which know me and my reputation know I have got a huge amount of knowledge on the subject of illegal methods.I am on a first name bases with most of the bee inspectors in the U.S. and have sat in on their meetings. Many times the only beekeeper. I have never been able to sit through one of their meetings without being asked to comment.

i can tell you those levels in those hives of amatraz & fluvalinate did not come from mitacur or apistan strips. They came from sticks dipped in tictac or mavrick. i have seen those figures in samples of comb from beekeepers busted for using those methods. 

I do find it funny that three so far would fog thymol when the supers & flow is on. i am begining to believe common sense is not a trait of a few beekeepers. Never would the FDA ever approve the method regardless of the amount of thymol. Maybe in Spain but not in the U.S. of A..


----------



## Carolina-Family-Farm (Aug 2, 2005)

Shucks Bob"
I'm not one of those;

"Who know you or your reputation"

So will you use your huge knowledge to explain to me how we simple minded beekeepers are supposed to (cure) the issues with mites?

If you don't have the correct answer could you ask one or more of almost all the US inspectors that you know on the first name bases to tell us the correct way to solve the problem?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

The largest operation in our area (1200 hives) ran apistan in the mid 1990's all through the summer. They had their honey tested regularly and never had it show up. I use the week between pulling the spring honey, extracting and putting the supers back on to do a mid season knock down. I've been using formic for that purpose for about 9 yrs. (well before approval) I don't make it practice with honey supers on as I consider it risky. Is there still formic in my pads when the supers go back on. yep. At least one study published in ABJ in the 1997 era show no residual formic contamination in honey or wax even when used during the flow. I guess I'm confused about the thymol issue. Rob please show me a report or study that states thymol is harmful in this ( or any simlar) type of application so I have a reason to be concerned. If not, and it doesn't contaminate or isn't detectable or harmful in honey, which I'm betting it isn't, what's the problem. If cumphos or amitraz is in our brood combs, it's in our honey. Bees move honey up all the time. The fact is trying to get through the entire honey season without treating for mites, especially in light of growing resistance to apistan and cumophos was never meant to be a yearly treatment(and shouldn't be) is a recipe for weak fall hives and heavy losses. I critize the guys abusing mavrik and tactic even though I know they are just trying to survive. I have no complaints with those using something as harmless as FGMO and/or thymol at any time of the season. The impact surely is less, if any and no comparrison to an organophosphate at any time.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

The first step is to quit creating super mites by using chemicals! 

Let the weak die off and breed from survivors!

All my bees are varroa tolerant. Took many years of hard work but not hard to do. 

No treatments needed. 

I burned or melted down every comb of mine which ever had a chemical used on it. All new comb.

I don't need thymol, OA, formic acid, fluvalinate, coumaphos or any other treatment.

I started beekeeping as a kid. Third generation beekeeper. i have had 7 articles published so far this year in ABJ & Bee Culture. 

I am a commercial beekeeper.

Who are you Carolina-family-farm? Whats your story?


----------



## Carolina-Family-Farm (Aug 2, 2005)

Well Bob"
Who am I ? Well as my name states "I'm a farmer" and a pretty simple one at that. 

Whats my story? I didn't know I had one to be honest, you can check the ABJ & Bee Culture and you wont find a thing there from me. I've never felt the need for a story.

I like good reasoning and you seem to be here to convince others of there wrong doings with FGMO and I felt sure that with all the wisdom and knowledge you have you also had an answer to the problem.

Now that I know you must have the answer to the mite problem, you've found the cure of natural selection without any treatments I'm wondering why it bothers you if others use a different method? As you stated.
" All your bees are already varroa tolerant" 

Your not having to treat with anything even while others are creating super mites your safe with your tolerant bees?

I'm also a third generation beekeeper, we've had them for many years. Buy new bees for pollination, set them up in a new hive and watch them die out in a few years without any treatments of any kind. We've had issues with wax moths small hive Beatles and mites over the years and the bees seem to lose the battle over and over.

I'm not a commercial beekeeper, just a few hives for some major gardens that feeds my family and friends. Without knowing it I've been using your method for years and continually buying new hives to replace the ones that just died, Bob can you tell me why its not working for me? Not one lived Bob (not even one)

Now Bob I just purchased a brand new fogger for FGMO (haven't used it yet) still brand new in the box. You made a reference above about common sense, and mine tells me that if what I've been doing isn't working (I need to do something different)

Now Bob don't be offended I'm still new here and I'm doing my best to learn from the wise commercial beekeepers so that I don't continually have to buy new bees. But someone has to suggest something valid with good reasonability. 

FGMO seems to be as valid to me today as anything suggested so far, and it being food grade, even if it doesn't work and I spend my money for a bad education in FGMO who has it hurt?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

> All my bees are varroa tolerant. Took many years of hard work but not hard to 
> do. 
> 
> No treatments needed. 

Hi Bob -

I have a couple questions about this thread. First, "not hard to do" and "no treatments needed" isn't the full story is it? Maybe no chemical treatments needed, but I don't think you are maintaining your stock as most beekeepers (non commercial) do. If I remember right, you have spent significant money in your queen stock. I remember saying on Bee-L a few years ago that this direction you took will keep you dependent on the queen breeders. Is this not the case? Give us the details on how you are keeping your bees alive and making a profit. How much do you spend a year on queens?

> I don't need thymol, OA, formic acid, fluvalinate, coumaphos or any other 
> treatment.

Okay, but I'd like the details on what you do need/use so there is a balance between your very hard remarks about using thymol and your success in using "nothing."

Second, what is the purpose of this poll? You've been pretty hard on everyone, quoting the law on its illegal use, so why a poll of this nature?

Regards,
Barry


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> Is the practice of fogging thymol when supers are on as recommended by Dr. Pedro safe as far as wax contamination?


I didn't bother to vote. 

If it had been worded: 
"Do you think the practice..... ..... is safe?" 
Then I might have voted.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> Those of you which know me and my reputation know I have got a huge amount of knowledge on the subject of illegal methods.I am on a first name bases with most of the bee inspectors in the U.S.


Wow!!


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Hi Barry,
The poll is simply to see how many of the beekeepers reading the posts would fog a chemical which stinks and has been found in honey and wax before ( told to me by people trying to register thymol and the reason thymol has not been given a full section 3 registration but only a section 18 emergency use) *while honey supers are on*. So far 50% will. Steve Forrest the person which brought Api life var (thymol) to the U.S. beekeeper has asked many times at national meetings why when given a legal treatment the beekeeper aways wonders off trying to mix his own witches brew.

The excuse in the old days was money. Now with honey prices high and pollination fees high I don't think the reason money holds water.I never really did but kind of understood what those beekeepers were saying. The treatment cost per hive of the legal treatment is a few dollars a hive. 

Lets stay on focus here.
Is not the use of thymol in any method WHILE THE HONEY SUPERS ARE ON NOT ILLEGAL? 
To use the legal registered Api Life var (thymol) as an example:
You could use half a tab instead of a full tab and be legal. You could not use two tabs and be legal when the label says use only one tab per treatment.
So technically you could use a smaller percent and be within the legal label use although fogging is not listed as an application method on the label.
The label for thymol in the U.S. says not to use while the honey supers are on. Any use while supers are on is against the law. Why?
Let me read directly from the thymol label:
Fatel if swallowed, absorbed through the skin ,inhaled. Causes irreversible eye damage corrosive causes skin burns. 
Sure the amount fogged is not as concentrated but stll the same chemical. The FDA laws are to protect the consumer and you from yourself. Many say the FDA is too strict which is laughable. Look at all the drugs which kill people each year in the U.S. some researcher has twisted the test results to get registered.
Lets all try and protect the pure name of honey.
Many people are highly alergic to many things. i am sure some of the people which said they would fogg while supers are on sell honey. What if a person dies after eating some of your honey and the source of the thymol is traced back to your honey? A girl died last week from kissing her boyfriend which had just ate some peanuts and she was alergic.
I have presented the legal side and others have presented the illegal side. At least now the new bees can choose wisely.
Much to busy the next few days doing a Christmas festival in another city to go into the complicated issues of varroa tollerance. Read my ABJ or Bee Culture articles ( One in each magazine in Jan. 2005) or posts on BEE-L or beesource on the subject.


----------



## Carolina-Family-Farm (Aug 2, 2005)

>>Why when given a legal treatment the beekeeper aways wonders off trying to mix his own witches brew.>>>

Bob it very well could be expense, a few dollars a hive times a large number of hives is a significant expense overall. But I suspect its due more to the poor affects of legal treatments. Most people will leave well enough alone if its working. Maybe what theyre offering just isnt working?
Expense is not an issue for a small beekeeper like myself but I wont throw money down a rat hole for legal or illegal treatments no matter what the amount if theyre not producing the results I want to see in my hives.

>>>Many say the FDA is too strict which is laughable. Look at all the drugs which kill people each year in the U.S. some researcher has twisted the test results to get registered.>>>

Bob in my business I get the pleasure of dealing with FDA often. Did you know that after FDA has approved a drug (made it a legal treatment) if that drug kills a number of people (The Manufacture of the drug cant be sued for wrongfully causing your death?) FDA gives them full protection under the law (the manufactory Bob) the ones who submitted the twisted test results and caused many deaths are fully protected from any liabilities and damage they have caused and you and I have no defense under the law thanks to FDA who is protecting me from myself?

Sounds like I would be better off with the witches brew.

Have a great holiday


----------



## daniel G. (Feb 24, 2005)

Please read the Red facts on Thymol. 

http://www.epa.gov/docs/REDs/factsheets/3143fact.pdf#search='thymol'

There is also research from Germany and Switzerland about the use of Thymol and residues on wax and honey.

Here is other research out there for Thymol residue from Ohiolink

http://journals.ohiolink.edu/local-cgi/send-pdf/051102125407271242.pdf

People are going to use what works for them. Not saying that it is illegal or legal. I know the percentage Dr. Pedro uses is less than 6% and no residues are in his wax or honey. Others have had there wax and honey tested too for FGMO and Thymol with no residues using Pedro's system. You know who you are, and please speak out.

I believe in my situation I am trying to go the route where I have no chemical absorption in wax or honey, if you want to call it organic or not. Apistan, Checkmite as you all know have produced chemical resistance and honey and wax residues.

There are two different kinds of varroa mites, the varroa destructer and jacobsonii. Could it be that FGMO and THYMOL do not work on one of these insect and works on the other? Research could prove it if they know the variety of varroa they are dealing with. This site talks about the two different species of varroa mite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varroa_destructor

I beleive some people will keep using checkmite and apistan and not worry about chemical resistance and contamination. 

No one has comvinced me with other research to show there are contamination levels in the lower rate that Dr. Pedro uses in his FGMO/Thymol mix.

I would love to see other research using Dr. Pedro's instructions and test results for contamination of honey and wax. If someone would love to get a grant to do this with a control that would be great. 
First I believe the varroa species needs to be identified to see if the FGMO/Thymol treatment works on one and not the other. That may be why some people are having a good kill with this treatment and others are not.
Following Pedro's protocol may be the other problem.

Right now I am using what works for me. Hell, I use listering every morning with Thymol in it. Does not taste bad. I have not seen any other tests results from the FDA or EPA showing that Thymol in food is harmful to humans. Higher rates of it could be of course.

You can make up your own minds of what you will use. Don't keep putting others down for what is working for them.

Dan.


----------



## daniel G. (Feb 24, 2005)

Sorry forgot to post the research perfromed in Germany and Switzerland about Thymol and residues.

http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/thymol.htm

Dan.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>There are two different kinds of varroa mites, the varroa destructer and jacobsonii. Could it be that FGMO and THYMOL do not work on one of these insect and works on the other?

Not trying to pick on you, just trying to clarify the facts. Actually, on this continient there is only Varroa destructor which used to be called jacobsonii until someone did some mitochondrial DNA testing and decided that what we have here is really destructor and NOT jacosonii. And they are not insects (which have six legs). They are arachnids (which have eight legs).


----------



## daniel G. (Feb 24, 2005)

Now some information on food grade mineral oil. I believe the last site gives the reader the MSDS sheet on the White mineral oil 70. I am not trying to expell your logic of being legal or illegal. But I think researching the products is valuable information before using them. 

Food grade mineral oil is used in many forms, including food. I believe that amount used with Thymol is very low. Especially when you only fog each hive three times for about three seconds each.

Again, I would love to see published research from others using a hive for control to see how much wax and honey is being contaminated with food grade mineral at the rates and protocol Dr. Pedro has established.

It would be a good dissertation for a doctorate student. Maybe someday I will do it. 

http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/thymol.htm

http://www.steoil.com/faqs.asp

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v05je84.htm

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v10je08.htm

http://www.steoil.com/msds_sheets.asp#70FG

http://www.steoil.com/pdfs/msds-crystalplus70fg.pdf

You can make up your own minds on your use. I am just trying to provide helpful information. I am not trying to put anyone down here.

Dan.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Dan, Now that's what I'm talking about, facts we can read, digest and apply. Thanks so much for the effort, I copied it all! Now we have the information to say we are informed! Glad you're a part of this forum too.

{Let the weak die off and breed from survivors}

So while the large beekeepers are watching 80-90% of their stock die off who is doing pollination and how are income dependant beekeepers feeding their families? I understand the concept but to expect beekeepers to allow a sudden collapse and start from scratch breeding from survior stock would be devestating and is unrealisistic.
Lets stay in the realm of whats possible. What are the steps from here to there.


Bob, I'm interested in the answers to Barrys' questions as I'm sure everyone else is. You've had decades to make adjustments and now use no treatments. Why are you not sharing every detail of your operation on the source or putting together a book. I'm amazed when I read there are beekeepers who claim to use nothing, have no problems but don't publish their management stratgey for all to use. Is there so much competition in our industry that we have to guard our "secrets". I consider it a privilage to share what I've learned with any faction in what is a struggling industry at many levels. Is it a money issue, put it on tape, type it up, make a dvd, I'll pay for it, I'd bet others would too.

Your analysis of the poll is also not accurate. 50% of Beekeepers are not saying they would fog thymol with supers on. Your poll asked is it safe. Apparrently the available information indicates it is. 50% are saying they agree, not that they would use it.

[ December 02, 2005, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## daniel G. (Feb 24, 2005)

Joel,

Glad you can use the information. I had gone to a beekeeping meeting in southern Ohio this summer and there was a older gentleman there who had been in beekeeping for 27 years. He would not share his secrets or what was working for him. Geez, I am a newbie and reading all I can read and wanting to know more. It is too bad some people think the industry has secrets they need to keep. It is not like we are trying to invent a new product.

Dan


----------



## daniel G. (Feb 24, 2005)

Michael,

Thanks for your clarification on the varroa mites. Dan


----------



## Bob Russell (Sep 9, 2003)

Daniel G
Excellent postings Daniel.Thanks for returning the forum to normality.You are asking people to speak out.I have sat back like many others since Dr.Rodriguez left this site.Maybe I may have enough influence to be able get him to return given time with a new approach.The varroa situation is too serious to pass over any research or ideas.Yes breeding bees resistant to varroa is also my top priority and has been since the varroa incursion to New Zealand in May 2000.This work has to be done chemical free.True that can not be done overnight,soft chemicals such as FGMO have to be explored.I have been revisiting a number of past research projects with varroa which are outside this forum but can demonstrate that people are willing to share and work together.Dr Rodriguez opened up all his 12 years research to me to assist towards instigating approval of FGMO in New Zealand of which a vast amount has never been published.Many have asked why he has changed and made additions to his process.The answer is simple.Continuous improvement and that is what we should all be aiming for.The skill and professions on this list makes the mind boggle.Varroa in Dr.Rodriguous's trial hives were DNA tested.He also published a warning in his ABJ article not to use thymol with the honey supers on as he was awaiting his lab results.The published results of these were published with no detection found.Daniel the percentage figures of thymol by weight are much lower than you posted.He has been asking for a long time for other researches to replicate to his protocol and has offered to direct the trial.

[ December 02, 2005, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Bob Russell ]


----------



## clintonbemrose (Oct 23, 2001)

Hi Bob and all.
As you know I have been using FGMO for the past 5 years as a commercial beekeeper. Yes I have been running checks on the honey, wax and the wood equipment during this time using commercial independant labs and have asked them to look for the FGMO. They have found nothing except pesticide residues that the bees must have brought in. Last year I added Thymol with the FGMO fog and had lab tests done looking for FGMO or Thymol and they didn't find FGMO but did find only the natural occurance of Thymol in nature only in the wooden ware. I will keep testing but I am down to a lower scale from 503 hives down to 10. I have retired because of health and an offer to buy out the business. The health problem is not related to FGMO/Thymol to answer all questions but due to complications incured in 1969 in Vietnam.
Clint


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Dan,
Its late and only time to read your two first sites you posted.

BELOW ARE DIRECT QUOTES FROM THOSE SITES.

The first site is about ApiLife Var and says NO EXCESSIVE RESIDUES were found when treatment is given AFTER THE HONEY FLOW.

I agree! There certainly are detectable residues but when properly used not a serious problem unless trying to ship honey into the UK. It is legal in the U.S. to use before the honey flow but many believe ( I for one) the label should be changed to like the site you posted suggests.


The second site is tests of the thymol frame which is similar to the formic frame. Some quotes from the site. Not sprayed directly on honey/comb but with fumes.

"When the thymol frame was removed during the honey flow the thymol residues were clearly lower than in the other apiairies"

"The *all year thymol frame* residues were DOUBLE the residues from the Api Life Var treatment."

The Swiss set the thymol tolerance at 0.8mg. because this amount cannot be tasted by the consumer. Not the way it works in the U.S. with the FDA.

Gaschromatography can detect .02 mg/kg. which is what the Feds are using to check U.S. honey. They picked up some of my honey and also several others in out area. Honey is on a three year "watch" list right now by the FDA.

Swiss average thymol in samples were .33 mg
German average thymol in samples were .63 mg.

The conclusion section of the second study sums things up ( did you not read the report Dan?)

"With whole year treatment the possibility that the taste of honey may be changed can not be IGNORED"

"Becauses of the concerns regarding honey quality , the use of the thymol frame can not be recommended for practical application"

Thanks Dan for taking the time to provide proof of what I have been saying.

All applications of thymol leave residues in honey. Double when the honey supers are on.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Clinton you fogging the thymol while your honey supers were on as Dr. Pedro recommends? 

You had honey or wax tested or both. After a season of fogging how many times.

What lab did you use and could you post their results or send me a copy.

I am very interested bacause finding zero thymol does not sound right with today's new machines.
.o2 mg/key (thymol detection level)should have shown thymol was used but at very low levels but only going by what the people doing the FDA honey watch have said. What do they know? Right?


----------



## JJ (Jun 22, 2004)

Bob, I think everyone is still waiting for you to answer all the question that Kurt,Joel,Barry has ask you. Take care JJ


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{With whole year treatment the possibility that the taste of honey may be changed can not be IGNORED"}

Agreed, but then no treatment should be used all year. IPM is the best realistic method for 99% percent of beekeeper that don't have perfect bees and run small cell, yet. (I'm only assuming your bees are perfect because it is obvious you are side stepping our other questions)FGMO/Thymol should only be a part of a whole plan.

There seem to be several issues I interpret from Bobs hesitancy with FGMO Thymol

1) Illegal/unapproved
2) Potentially contaminate the taste of honey
3) Can cause an allergic reaction simliar to peanuts resulting in death and a law suit.
4) Suggested by Dr. Pedro who left Beesource do to feeling he was constantly under attacked regarding this issue.

I think we've clearly eliminated 2 and 3 if it is used properly. That leaves 1 or 4. I quess if Dave Thomas was still with us he'd be asking 
"Where's the Beef?" Bob?

[ December 03, 2005, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Joel,
Private emails say I am wasting my time trying to inform this list. I do not believe so!
At least I hope not as I have better ways to spend my time.

Does the list respect Kim Flottum? In his column in Bee Culture this month he warns all using non approved methods people are watching.

Does the list respect Dr. Malcom Sanford? In his column this month he warns beekeepers about the new registration for tylosin by saying people are watching and checking honey.

I am warning Dr. Pedro. I am warning the list.

Read both those columns in your Bee Cultures and post your comments. Do the three of us know things you don't.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Barry & All,

If you search my posts on BEE-L you will see the statement made by me over & over:

"Beekeeping is both complicated & simple at the same time"

At rare times I visit the world of simple beekeeping to help a new beekeeper but its hard for me because I spend my time in the world of complicated beekeeping.

One of the reasons the state of Florida tried to hire me last summer was for my ability to put this new age of beekeeping we are moving into in terms the average beekeeper can understand. 

Education is the key to being able to survive beekeeping pests and keep bees. In the last month I have met beekeepers which were stock brokers & a bank president which asked me why they could not keep their bees alive more than one season. 

Typical as they were still in the world of simple beekeeping. 

As to the question of moving from being dependent on chemicals to use of nothing the answer is education & moving from simple beekeeping into complicated beekeeping.

Example:
I have grown an organic orchard for decades. The key to success is I know exactly what is going on in the orchard at all times. 

The same holds true with dropping the chemicals in beehives. Test test test! Observe observe observe.

You are going to lose some trees & fruit to pests. you are going to lose some hives & production to dropping chemicals.

As your knowledge level grows your success will grow.

Yes I have bought & tested most every type queen released such as Hygienic, SMR , NWC, Russian, Yugo and from other breeders such as Dann Purvis. 
I have also tested many ferals , survivors from many lines and about every method recommended on the net for varroa control.

Life is a circle native americans say! Karate people say the same. 
You start out with the simple. Move through the world of the complicated and then return to the simple (or start).

Every journey begins with the first step. Those afraid to take the first step will never complete the journey.

If heading out on the road to chemical free you need to learn from each mistake. If not you will not get very far. As with organic gardening you have only got guidelines and not a precise set of directions. Keep your wits about you and dedication and you will complete the journey to chemical free . 

You will pass many beekeepers along the road to chemical free beekeeping which have given up and returned to the old ways.

Being able to raise your own queens is all that's needed to free yourself of being dependant on always buying varroa tolerant queens. Every beekeeper should learn to raise his/her own queens!

I am at the point that I eliminate the hives which are not as varroa tolerant and raise queens from those that are. Simple back to basics beekeeping. The journey has taking me back to the start.

The only queens I buy are for my experiments. I do buy a 100 of a line at a time to get a correct evaluation of the subject line. 

I have also got queens from the Buckfast abbey,Italy and Australia which no other beekeeper in the U.S. except my partner has. They were *given* to us both by an Australian queen breeder for testing in the U.S..

I am adding varroa pressure trying to see the way they perform under added varroa pressure. In ten years if varroa arrives in Australia I will be able to hand back the answer to their varroa problems found within their own 100 year old line of bees.

Why? Because if we all switch to say the Russians all the bees of the world will be Russian. Has happened in cattle. Some of us need to find varroa tolerant bees in carniolans, caucs and other lines or those lines will be dropped in favor of the new varroa tolerant mongrels. Travel to Scotland and you can see what the original hereford cattle look like. Travel to the U.K. and you can see what the A.m.m race in pure form is like.
Not going to find both in pure form in many places in the U.S.if any.

Happy Holidays!


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

So I guess what you are saying is that the powers that bee are reading this web site and are taking names. I guess they probably are the ones that started that map thread where many beeks identified where they are located. I guess the private citizen is not allowed to do any kind of research unless they are sanctioned by some government agency. So I guess we should all stop writing on this board in fear of even discussing this subject. Soon they will have satellite imaging of all the bee yards in the world (they probable do already). Please stop beating around the bush. If the three of you know something the rest of the people dont I implore you to just come out and say it. Will people on this board be busted for even talking about this subject? Is the good doctor going to bee busted for doing research with out the O.K. from the government? Is this the beekeeping we have come to? Is this the kind of beekeeping you want to leave to your kids???
WHAT IS TYLOSIN???? Well I guess were not in Kansas any more? Were is that dang lion when you need him. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Mac,
I don't believe big brother cares about busting the small beekeeper but only educating them.

Enforcement in beekeeping comes mostly by complaint or inspection for a permit.

I see you do not subscribe to either bee magazine.
I think at least one would be a wise investment. Joining a beekeeping club helps keep you informed.

Your area in Florida has big problems with AHB. I will be looking at the problem in January.

Tylosin is the new registered antibiotic for American Foul brood. Was not given a registration for preventive use but only for *control of the active disease*. Big difference. Tylosin although a antibiotic very different than the banned antibiotics found in China & Argentina honey does not break down like terramycin did so can be found in honey. There is no tolerance for tylosin in honey. In syrup & honey the contamination lasts a long time unlike Terra. Syrup is the perferred method being used by commercial beekeepers. The use of the drug will be stopped and we will not have an effective AFB control if missuse by beekeepers makes tylosin start turning up in honey.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{Joel,
{Private emails say I am wasting my time trying to inform this list. I do not believe so!
At least I hope not as I have better ways to spend my time.}

Rob we've done very well without you being here to try "to inform" us. We have a ton of very positive, forward thinking, experianced beekeepers who openly debate issues furthering our craft, excellant moderators and a group of very dedicated people keeping on the forward edge of research. I learn every time I come here, including from some of your previous posts. I'd like to learn some more from you. Frankly I (and apparrently others) find your seemingly self superior attitude bothersome. Not because in itself I find it offensive, many very intellegent people want to promote their expertise, so be it. I'm more offended that despite the fact you have decades of experiance, considerable industry connections, a proclaimed superior management stratgey which requires no drugs or chemical treatments, you give little of substance in that arena in your posts. I don't care for the "this post" aspect of your response either, it sounds allot like the term "you people". One thing you can be sure of on this post, we all have our opinions and they are stated openly and sometimes pointedly, despite that virtually everone shows a level of responsibiltiy to pull thier share. That means more than self promoting posts that have no substance other than to critize or try and instill some type of fear that those not following your guidelines are in danger from big brother or will ruin the industry. 

If you know about tylosin you are aware commercial beekeepers have been using it and lyncomycin since about 1998 when early research showed it's effectivness without a single problem I've seen published. Us saying beware won't change that. Incidentally since it is "illegal" in most states to treat AFB (most if not all states require burning the hives) are we to use an approved drug for an illegal treatment? Of course it does not cure the disease, only the symptoms because it does not treat it until it reaches the vegatative stage. Of course it does persist in Honey with a half life of 4 mos. Definate concerns there!

Bob, I for one, having read many of your Bee-L posts as well as posts here need no convincing of your expertise and what you have to offer. I don't want to hear your arguments about big brother and the illegality of certain methods of Tylan use, I already know all that. I control foulbrood by using Cliff Van Eatons methodology, no drugs, extremely effective. I want to hear about your operation, how did you convert a commercial operation to small cell? What was the cost? What was the effectiveness? How long did it take. Did you just let your hives collapse until you had reisitant stock? Why are you buying all these other stocks we know are not mite proof, won't they degrade your stock? Do you sell queens? Some time back you published a post detailing what type of treatments you had used over the years and results. One of the few I've printed. That's how you're going to educate on this post and establish your expertise.

Incidentally, if you are the only one to have Buckfast from the Abbey, Why was Brother Adam pictured with Weaver who was the sole recognized producer of Buckfast bees in the USA?

I'm headed to Bee-L later to research some of your posts, hopefully I'll find what I'm looking for there, It doesn't seem you want to share it here. I hope you take the time to share what you find about AHB after your endeavors in January!!

[ December 04, 2005, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>most states to treat AFB (most if not all states require burning the hives) are we to use an approved drug for an illegal treatment?

I think that was true at one time. I don't know if it is now or not. In Nebraska you are not required to burn and you are allowed to treat with TM.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

There is no reason to debate legality. I'm sure that it varies greatly from state to state and is a matter of puplic record that your extension agent can help you with. Federal laws are currently on the web. Google "USDA" and "extra label drug usage guidelines" Nobody is going to get busted unless they 1) clearly did something that they probably knew was wrong and 2) got caught doing it. I think that all Bob is just trying to say is that the USDA is *protecting* the purity of honey sold to Americans by applying tha same testing that we currently use for milk, meat, and eggs. The tests work, and can even be performed by producers who are uncertain whether their product is fit for human consumption. Most drug residue violations that I am aware of have come from imported bulk honey. The USDA doesn't have the resources to go around testing every hobbiest's kitchen honey pot, even if they wanted to. There are much bigger fish to fry in the world of food safety.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

I'm aware of that MB, I'm trying to make a point of the fruitless arguments about the legality of treatments. I beleive it is actually still illegal in most states as the laws have not been changed, it is just allowed by the inspectors. Technically then it is still illegal and the inspectors are breaking the law!  A mute point either way as well stated by our friend from State College. I don't believe the FDA Police are out there looking for folks fogging supers with thymol, what ever effect it has on the taste of honey.

[ December 04, 2005, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

> Without knowing it I've been using your method for years and continually buying new hives to replace the ones that just died, Bob can you tell me why its not working for me? Not one lived Bob (not even one)


Perhapse I can answer this question for you. It has to do with genetics, selection, and DNA. 

Carolina, you are buying bees every time to replace your bees and likely starting over with bees that have the same resistance to mites as the ones that died out. Your un-resistant hives are dying out but you are not stepping in and doing "selection" as resistant queen breeders must do. Your method is not the same as you are doing the exact same thing over and over without selection, recieving the same results.
Also you don't have enough colonies to do significant selection, but you could play around with some available "resistant" bees if you can find any for sale.

On the beesource main pages you can find very detailed descriptions of how the Lusby's selected for bees that survived the mites while less resistant hives crashed. They lost loads of bees but used the surviving bees to breed new bees. There was something special about the bees that survived and they passed their DNA on to their offspring hives. Many of these hives crashed but some did not and again they bred from these. This was repeated over and over with more bees surviving all the time. You can read about other methods, small cell, etc. they used at the same time to get surviving bees, but part of their success has to do with breeding mite resistance. Resistant bees are selected and bred to make the DNA that makes them resistant more prevelant. So the overall population is largely resistant. Wathing hives die then replacing them with random or the same genetics is unlikely to change anything.

If I had a few hundred hives, I would do this to try and get mite resistant bees: (NOTE: not in chronological order)

1. Do mite counts and identify which hives are doing the worst with the mites. 

2. Requeen some number of highly infested hives with the best avaliable resistant stock. (economics will decide how many)

3. Do ONE EFFECTIVE mite treatment period at the end of summer on infested hives so as to more accurately see what hives are handleing the mites on their own up to that point and not using any treatment as a cruch. (Some hives will be handling mites better for reasons other than DNA, but some good percentage should be handleing them better because of DNA.)

4. IMPORTANT: Breed new queens from colonies that have the lowest mite counts. If some hives have 100 mites wile the rest have 200 use the hives with 100 to breed queens. As you are importing some resistant stock, you should have better counts than that. Requeen as many infested hives as possible with these queens.

5. Optional: buy a few resitant breeder queens (Expensive) to breed your own production queens.

6. Make sure your *more resistant* hives have lots of drones to spred their DNA during times of queen breeding.

7. hopefully you will get there and stop using treatments

This can all be done while doing things you need to be doing anyway, splits, requeening, treating for mites, etc. Adding queen rearing yards to the mix should help and get you more queens to do your work with. 
You can even sell out some of those infested hives, instead of requeening them. They will have similar DNA to what most bees are avaliable. Give them a good treatment of something before selling to get the ball in the new beekeepers court. There are plenty of treatments both organic and not that are very effective at killing off enough mites to make it till next year.

There is no need to do nothing and watch hives die. Wanting to go organic is no excuse. Apilife and Formic works great. Don't be a beehaver.

OH yea, this thread was about FGMO w/thymol, I have no problem with it except fogging with honey supers on. And the above reference to a cruch throughout the year. To each his own as long as its not causing contamination. But, why risk it during a honey flow? I have not heard of colonies crashing from mites during a honey flow. Can this happen after doing an effective fall/late summer treatment? If so, what about after an effective spring treatment? If so I have not seen or heard of these horrid mites.

[ December 04, 2005, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: MichaelW ]


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Ah, there was a second page to this thread, degraded somewhat. 

Joel, you can search this site, I have an understanding of your questions from reading on this site.

Also, I, unlike most, care more about the substance of what someone is saying and care less about how they say it. I really don't give a flip how people care to speak, I will listen to what they have to say. Words of common sense and facts will not fall on deaf ears here. I sometimes appreciate background information to know where people are comming from.

Here's my speal, I keep some bees, about 6 colonies. Started with four 6 years ago. They died, got one 4 years ago, removed a swarm, bought 2 queens, did splits and cought swarms. Like to read, think, and observe.


----------



## fat/beeman (Aug 23, 2002)

gosh youy people scare me to death with big brother this and that. I think I should just keep my opions to my self from now on. on what I do in my bee yards and how my bee servive without treatments of pesticides. I f I have to put all that crap in my hives I would throw in the towel and call it finished. I am on small cell and make my own foundation to keep out all the pesticides and do use FGMO=its a laxative in my fogger. some herbal treatments. but people saying all this stuff worries me. some of us realy and truely try to help the new bees in there indevors. but the threat of doing some thing iliegal bothers me.
so if I just listen to all the pro's maybe I'll learn this craft better.======Don


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Don, Don't be ascared! Bob is the only one sounding the Big Brother Alarm bell and issuing warnings. If you read his posts here and on Bee-L he tends to lean toward the alarmist which probably is good because it keeps us thinking. I've read many of his posts, he does have the best interest of the industry at heart and isn't usually this ominous. Keep on posting!

Michael, the content of your posts far exceeds the years you've had to learn this craft, I would have never guessed.

[ December 04, 2005, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Bob is the only one sounding the Big Brother 
> Alarm bell...

> ...he tends to lean toward the alarmist...

Writing styles aside, Bob is simply voicing
a point that should be obvious to even the
casual observer. He seems to be voicing
his point in ever more blunt terms in response
to the knee-jerk defenses being offered for an
completely indefensible practice.

No one is selling any pesticides, or products
to be used in a pesticides effort, so no one
will be fined by the EPA or anyone else.
("Mite Solution" was a product being overtly sold
as a pesticide, and it took repeated complaints
by Jack Thomas of Mann Lake to get the EPA to
step in and "regulate" Tuttle, who made the
unfortunate decision of trying to act as his own
lawyer in the matter. If not for the unique
combination of a take-no-prisoners business
competitor and a lack of legal expertise, there
would have been no fine levied upon Tuttle at all.)

The main question is one of ethics for most of
the participants in these forums. I would think
that such considerations would matter even more
when one feeds one's honey to one's own family
and sells or gives it to one's friends.

Note that "Big Brother" is not the problem here.
It is little sister, Mom, Dad, Aunt Nancy, and the kids.
What do you want THEM to be eating?


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Michael W. gives a good discription of the search for the varroa tolerant bee.

He makes an excellent point about not letting the hives die off. I agree with Michael. A couple friends simply let the hive fight varroa until the PMS stage and then pick up the equipment.

Because I keep bees for a living (and Joel will find in my past BEE-L posts) when a hive approaches varroa threshold (by testing) I remove the hive from the yard and take to a distant yard around 25 miles from my home base.
The reason being the hive has a new queen and the potential of making a honey crop. These hives are treated if needed and requeened as soon as possible with a new varroa tolerant queen. I do not want any of the hives drones in my varroa tolerant drone pool! By removing and treating I can get part of my investment in money and labor back. Because I run a migratory outfit moving bees is the easiest job I do. Being migratory has made my search for the varroa tolerant bee easier than the Baton Rouge bee lab and even my friend Dann purvis operation. I have got a tool which moves a hive from pallet to pallet with one hand. I pick the pallet up with my swinger forklift and sit on the truck and off I go.
I keep each type of bee race from each breeder in a yard by itself. The queen rearing yard is in the center with drone source colonies on site and one mile in four directions. For special matings I take the nucs to the remote yard I want to use as a drone source.
The only queen operation I have seen close to mine is the Purvis Brothers Apiairies operation. Dann has many remote yards which give reliable open matings *if* enough drone source colonies are in the area.
After two days of visiting Dann & looking through his hives and records we joined forces! We have exchanged queens and information. We sent Purvis Brothers a nice selection of the Australian queens to find a varroa tolerant queen from. I wish we had joined forces earlier as Dann had found his varroa tolerant queen as had I when we met but we talk often by phone and exchange information. I have signed a "non discloser" agreement with Purvis Brothers and a retired USDA researcher which works with Dann. I brought back 28 instrumentally inseminated queens from Dann on one of my trips. I was the largest buyer of his production queens in spring 2005.I wanted the queens for testing and as a remote bee yard drone source of both the Pruvis Gold line and the Purvis Blue line. 
Some I brought back I inseminated and some a young fellow which works for me inseminated. The bulk Dann Purvis inseminated. A picture of an insemination I did can be found on page 43 of the article I did for the January 2005 American Bee Journal entitled "21st. century Beekeeping".
The young fellow ( Justin Danner pictured on pg. 44) which works for me left last year to work for Kona queen for a year but now has returned to help me. I need his young eyes.
I found my first survivor queens in my operation in the nineties when Apistan quit working. I had no approved treatment so when a hive became infested with varroa I removed to a remote yard to crash. The hives which were left were varroa tolerant so I started raising queens from those hives. Two of those queens were as varroa tolerant as any bee I have seen. They were a basis plus the drones from a feral survivor queen I removed from an old horse barn.
Post is getting long.
Happy Holidays!


----------



## Carolina-Family-Farm (Aug 2, 2005)

>>>>Carolina, you are buying bees every time to replace your bees and likely starting over with bees that have the same resistance to mites as the ones that died out. Your un-resistant hives are dying out but you are not stepping in and doing "selection" as resistant queen breeders must do.>>>>

MichaelW
For many years we've had bees (but didn't have time to be beekeepers) We purchased hives for pollination reason only. We didn't remove honey or add treatments that could have caused stress on the hives.
We purchased bees from different breeders and even different states but the end results have always been the same. After buying them several years in a row a local beekeeper suggested we start with new hive equipment instead of reusing hive bodies from dead outs. We did this for a number of years, each time we lost a hive we burnt the hive and purchased a new one, ordered new bees and started them over again.

(I was stating to Bob that doing nothing at all does not work) at least not for us. Bob stated that we should let the weak die for a natural genetics selection improvement. If we had a large number of hives this may be good advise but when your using 6 to 10 hives in a farming operation you don't have the numbers needed for natural selection. Buying from different breeders across the state didn't prove worthwhile and doing nothing was a waste of hard earned cash, (we were not trying to have organic hives at the time and I do my best to not use excuses for the truth about anything).

When I look at the available treatments that are FDA approved I have to wonder why anyone would abject to FGMO? I suspect its due to the fact that FGMO can't be patent controlled, people in high places aren't getting there cut.
I don't trust the FDA to protect me, not only do I not trust them I'm not interested in there protection. 

We have in recent years started to spend time studying beekeeping and were learning and deciding the approach we would like to take. We'll be breeding our own queens this coming year and I just started fogging with FGMO, I believe FGMO is much safer than allowing FDA to do my thinking for me.

There is a lot of information out there and some real high quality beekeepers on this sight such as yourself who are very helpful, we'll take it all in and decide what's best for our farm.

Thanks


.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

I only abject to FGMO during the honey flow. I personally am not using it for previous stated reasons and conflicting results in scientific studies. However, its hard to argue with people that use it and say it works. Who am I to say what they are doing in their hives has what affect.
I agree, compared to FDA approved methods it shouldn't hurt anything if fogged w/thymol NOT during the honey flow and some undetermined amount of time just before the honey flow. Also Thymol and Formic Acid has been shown to deplete in hives while chemicals in Apistan and Checkmite will stay, setting up a potential for honey contamination and other problems.

Thanks for kind words folks.

[ December 04, 2005, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: MichaelW ]


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Bob, I caught up on your Bee-L posts and better understand your concerns with treatment infecting honey after seeing there was sulfa-thiazoline found in honey in Canada. I don't beleive it came from flowers either. One beekeeper but after the chinese fiasco we know one is likely just the tip of the iceberg. For the record no one should be treating with anything during a honey flow. I think treating foulbrood with anything is just masking the disease and allowing spores to increase. I also see small cell didn't work for you and apparrently hasn't panned out in control studies. It's wonderment why it works for Lusby, MB and others who post. I've given it serious thought previously.

You really should put your experiances on tape and offer them, 40 yrs is a long time. You could do it on your next drive/flight to CA! Some of us don't have that long to get to where you are, a little insight would excellerate things.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Dee has pointed out that I am a small cell beekeeper as i try to keep 5.1mm comb. I did not see a big difference when I tried 4.9mm but my 5.1mm has some small cell and my 4.9mm had some larger cell.

I did see a huge difference in my bees when I put all the bees on new comb. Economics prevented me from going 4.9mm. The plastic 4.9mm was 1.80 per sheet when I was buying the 5.1mm for .68-.70 a sheet. The 4.9mm from Dadant was unwired aand I have really liked the fast cleanup of deadouts with plastic. I wired comb for decades but tire of wiring now. I also have been reluctant to buy foundation due to contamination from chemicals. I got most my foundation unwaxed and drawn on a honey flow. I also bought a load of deep supers with plastic foundation and drawn comb from my close friend Horace Bell (Florida) when he went out of business. They had never been exposed to chemicals and were used to replace the last of my comb which had chemicals used. Culling comb is tough to do because such an expense in time ,money & labor but you will see a diference in the way your bees thrive!


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

I might add that it was pointed out by a small cell beekeeper recently that 5.1mm is the natural size for my area according to the map posted on beesource and 4.9mm is the correct size for Arizona.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

> I also see small 
> cell didn't work for you and apparrently hasn't panned out in control studies. 
> It's wonderment why it works for Lusby, MB and others who post. I've given it 
> serious thought previously.

I happen to be one in the SC camp. Dennis Murrell and I have remained in close contact over the years since we both visited the Lusby's to see their bees and operation. We don't accept the "official" SC party-line as gospel, as our observations have led to different conclusions. I will say this, several years ago I had to downsize, for personal reasons, from 12 hives to 2, and I have not been able to spend *any* time working the hives. My two hives that have a majority of small cell comb in them keep moving right along on their own. Chemical free wax and smaller cell comb have served me well. I have no need to change a thing.

- Barry


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<The FDA laws are to protect the consumer and you from yourself.>>

I have to chuckle over this one! Where was the FDA (EPA, USDA, and all the other A's) when I really needed them to protect me from myself? Oh, they were amending laws to appease annoyed beekeepers in Georgia!

http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/Newsletter/nov2003.htm 

------
3.  Remove Api-Life Var tablets from hive at least 5 months (150 days) prior to harvesting the honey.

It is the third provision above that has caused controversy on this particular section 18 exemption. The 150-day withdrawal interval is the time between the last Api-Life treatment and subsequent marketable nectar flow. For much of south Georgia which receives significant nectar flows as early as March (especially if one moves to Florida citrus), this means the last Api-Life wafers must be removed no later than the first of October. This also means the treatment must begin no later than 32 days previous in order to receive a full treatment. This regimen is possible for most of Georgia, but it will require careful attention to timing.

The USA registrant, Brushy Mountain Bee Farm, advises us that negotiations with EPA are occurring to shorten the 150-day withdrawal interval, and the Florida state label was successfully amended to 30 days.
-------

If testing showed that 150 days was needed, why was it changed? If 30 days was all that was needed, why say 150? Another glaring example of the FDA (EPA, USDA, and all the other A's) protecting us. This was the same scenario with Coumaphos.


- Barry

[ December 05, 2005, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: Barry ]


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

The FDA has minimal imput into the regulation of honeybee treatments. The FDA does regulate food labeling and testing but most of your gripes should go to the USDA (technically beeks are practicing animal ag) or the EPA (who regulate topical and environmentally active compounds) as these organizations have more say in establishing "best practices" and treatment guidelines with regard to agriculture.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Check out the following link for clarification of FDA (AMDUCA) guidelines:

http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/courses-jmgay/VMADProducerDrugs.htm

As stated above, I think that thymol and FGMO would qualify as non-cosmetic topicals, and therefor be regulated by the EPA, not the FDA. The FDA's interest would only relate to determining when the hive products are considered unadulterated and free of harmful drug residues. I do not know if any safe level of thymol residue in honey has yet been established, but I prefer minimal thymol with my morning Cherios


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

Thymol is regulated by both agencies. Thymol is used as a food flavoring in ice cream, gum, non-alcoholic beverages, mouthwash, baked goods and candy. It is recognized as a GRAS essential oil by FDA (21 CFR 182.20). EPA regulates it in ApiLife Var and I'm not sure where else.


----------



## Carolina-Family-Farm (Aug 2, 2005)

After reading all the post it would seem that most agree that varroa tolerant stock would be worth the time and effort, If you were living in the North Carolina area who's varroa tolerant stock would be available?
Who are the high quality varroa tolerant queen Breeders that could ship to us without major issues?
I'm was already planning to split and re-queen this spring. Would someone care to suggest a breeder?
Cost is not a major issue, we don't have that many hives, we're working on breeding our own queens (buying the equipment and learning how to) this coming season, would a single breeder queen be better than re-queening all the hives ?
After the splits we should have 11 hives this coming spring.

Thanks


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

[Culling comb is tough to do because such an expense in time ,money & labor but you will see a diference in the way your bees thrive!]

We have culled around 1000 frames of brood comb (out of about 1500) in the last 3 years and gone to plasticell. This was a result of converting to non-drug control of Foulbrood per Van Eaton/Goodwins studies. Our bees have clearly shown a great improvement over that time. We've been breeding from our overwintered stock for 3yrs and those bees came into their own this year, out perfomed our buckfast from Weaver. I've only become interested in Small Cell since joining this post. Cost of re-replacing all the comb just added is daunting ( materials, labor, cost of production loss). One of the threads here has an interesting study recently published on small cell. Like everything we do it seems to work for some and not for others. I have hopes that with less drone I'm seeing on plasticell it will impact the mite issue.

Barry adding you to the list of successful users will keep me open minded, MB has had great success. I just need to eliminate other factors that could be affecting mite levels such as isolation, natural cycles and resistant stock before I sink a several thousand into small cell

[ December 05, 2005, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Joel -

Make sure you read what Dennis has written about SC.

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/small-cell/

I feel he provides a good balance to the topic and is very honest about his observations with no favored agenda.

- Barry


----------



## daniel G. (Feb 24, 2005)

Bob,

Yes I did read the report, thus the reason for showing the research I had found. I beleive though that the percentages of Thymol listed in the Apilife Var and Apigaurd are much higher than what Dr. Pedro uses, thus the result of Thymol in the wax and honey.

One can see from the others post the test results using Dr. Pedro method is showing no residual affects of Thymol and FGMO on honey or wax. Yes Thymol is natural occurance being brought into the hive by the bees. 

That is why I have asked others who use this system and have their hives tested to come forth and let others know what they find in the way of residuals. I am not trying make an argument here but I think if we could work with each other to find the best method of varroa control or one that works without residuals we would be doing the community a great service.

I am glad others have spoken out about their use of Thymol and FGMO, or the use of oxalic acid, and other applications and if there is residual affects or not. I think we all need to keep sending samples in to get tested to see what residuals occur in the wax and honey.

It would be neat to start a research project and get it published to find out what percentage of products cause residuals in the wax and honey. I think with Dr. Pedro's research already in progress and has been for 15 years, this is a great start in finding out what works for some and not ohters and the residual affects of honey and wax.

Dan.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I beleive it is actually still illegal in most states as the laws have not been changed

Well, I don't know all of the state laws but here are the first two I found in a search and neither of them require burning nor does my state...

Arkansas:

"E. Should upon inspection or laboratory analysis, any of the diseases described in Sub-Section
L be determined to exist in an apiary it shall be the duty of the Board to cause to be treated or
disinfected or to destroy or cause to be destroyed by fire the colony, including the hives, frames,
honey, wax, and brood."

http://www.plantboard.org/plant_pdfs/apiarylaw.pdf#search='Apiary%20law'

Missouri:

"buildings or bees are found to be infected
with American foulbrood, the owner shall
eradicate the disease in one (1) of the ways
listed as follows:
1. By state-approved chemotherapy
treatments, such as the feeding of antibiotics,
where the disease has not spread to the point
of weakening the colony beyond the possibility
of control with chemotherapy treatments;
2. By burning..."


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Barry,
Thanks much for the link. There are factors I didn't realize playing in the small cell success including clean brood nests (probably more time for bees to be hygenic if they aren't cleaning cells), resitant bred stock and what I like best is no regression necessary. It appears too that in accordance with natural hives you would only have to replace the center brood frames with small cell. This is the 1st I've read that make it a realistic prospect for a sideline or commercial operation. Well written too.


----------



## JJ (Jun 22, 2004)

Hi everyone, Just wondering if someone could tell who or where can you send off your honey and wax to get it tested. I have heard that it is very expensive to have done. Take care JJ


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Good question, perhapse that calls for a new thread to get some attention.


----------



## JJ (Jun 22, 2004)

Hi everyone, Well I got some info. I talked to Mr Hayes here in Florida about testing labs. He gave one that alot of people use. It is called ABC Research Lab. Phone number is 352-3720436. I also talked to Dadant. I called the Lab and they said to get started it would cost about 380.00 for a honey&wax test. The way I understand it is once you use them and they get set up it does get cheaper. Take care JJ


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

$380 for a single test. Wow!
$380 will pay for a bunch of new foundation!

Jeff Pettis (Beltsville bee lab) gave the PPM of a single use of Apistan , a ppm of a single use of checkmite and another PPM of a chemical rise on the mass spec machine when both have been used.

His talk at the ABF convention was mind blowing. if you have used either of the above legal treatments you have got some wax contamination issues. 

If you have used several of the illegal methods he discussed you have got serious wax contamination problems.

The only solution according to Jeff is comb replacement.

Many beekeepers choose to ignore the problem and blame their poor bees on winter, queen producers, drought, poor flows and about any other reason but the real reason.


----------



## JJ (Jun 22, 2004)

Hi everyone, Yes very expensive I thought you would have known that Bob as much testing as you have had done. The only way that the sideliner or hobbiest could possibly have it done is if they maybe could get there BeeKeeping Association to take up collection from the members so they could get regestered. Then as they use the Lab the price come down. Also others may check around and see in there own areas at some of the Labs. Well maybe someone will have a friend at a lab that could test FGMO/THYMOL. Pedro has done his test and Clinton has done I think 2 0r 3 and they have shown no trace. Take care JJ


----------



## JJ (Jun 22, 2004)

Hey Yall, I dont think that no one is going to just go and have there wax&honey tested for no reason Bob. I think the subject here is FGMO/THYMOL. Seems like we all at one time or the other used Apistan or Checkmite.Bob I dont think everyone can do what you have done on either new foundation or small cell and a complete new queen line or what ever you have done and believe me I dont mean anything by what im going to say but its alot easier to do the talk after you have completed something than it is before you start. You have completed yours and we havent even began. Not one of us at here want to be doing something wrong or hurt anyone with the methods that are being used. I have said this and so has alot of other people we need to all get along and work together. I know I dont know as many Big Wheels as you do Bob, but I do my share of talking to others and everyone wants to help and try to give good advise. Hope not to make anyone made Take care JJ


----------



## clintonbemrose (Oct 23, 2001)

I have been taking chemotherapy and have just finished my first series after being diagnosed with bone cancer and a severe infection in my R leg.
That is the reason I have not responded to this board.
Yes I fogged this year with FGMO/Thymol.
I have had 3 tests on comb and honey run and no higher levels of Thymol have been found than normal occurance against control hives.
No FGMO was found in the hives.
I fog weekly and have had the wooden ware tested also.
I have saved all the honey foged with Thymol and not sold it. It will be fed back to the test hives next spring.
Test hives 5
Control hives 5
This is an ongoing test and has 2 more years before it will be completed.
10 people have tasted the honey and not found any difference in taste conpared to the non-Thymol honey.
Clint


----------



## JJ (Jun 22, 2004)

Hey Clint, Good to see you back on the forum. Take care of yourself. JJ


----------

