# New Varroa treatment section 18 approval



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the active ingredient in "Hivestan"?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

fenpyroximate

Idiots.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

I googled Fenpyroximate last night and got 45,000 hits. It's been around for
a long time. It's a MITO-Acaricide. (MITO=Mitochrondial electron transfer inhibitor). It works by disrupting the intimate interactions within a cell. Spider mites was one target species. They do build up resistance to it.

Since it is availble under at least 3 names for other uses in agriculture I expect major 'keepers will react by building their own patties. Here we go again. 

Since it isn't new, I wonder why it wasn't used before. Then I wonder at the release at this time. These 2 motivations interest me.

On the wild side, this mitochrondial interference is precisely what happens in Parkinsons Disease. Check out the Michael J Fox website.

Kieck: I'm waiting for your comments. 

dickm


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

The patty contains irradiated honey to attract bees . . .

Wunder who's honey they are using????


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I believe you mean "METI," not "MITO," dickm.

You're right, though, that fenpyroximate has been around for a while. And has been used for control of insects and other mites.

What really surprises me is that they're recommending treating with Hivastan in both spring and fall. Resistance and cross-resistance to fenpyroximate in mites in crops has been so quick to develop that only one application of METI acaricides each year is recommended. Cross resistance has been found from resistance to dimethoate (a common pesticide, used around here especially in alfalfa to control alfalfa weevils and potato leafhoppers, but also used in almost all fruit crops and many, many field crops) and to pyridaben (a miticide, used mainly in tree fruits, grapes, etc).

I think rotating among the three -- Apistan, Checkmite+, and Hivastan -- would decrease the rate at which resistance to any one of the three would develop, but you still run the risk of cross-resistance. Also, I expect my bees run into dimethoate pretty frequently when they're foraging. Maybe that's why fenpyroximate doesn't have a particularly high kill rate against Varroa?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

From the people that brought us Apistan and Check-Mite, sterile drones, polluted combs, and dud queens, we now have yet another way to weaken our bees, contaminate out honey, and waste our money: Hivastan. Apply twice a year.

What are they thinking?

One of the synonyms for fenpyroximate is "dynamite". Michael Bush has suggested using dynamite as a mite treatment. I don't think this is what he had in mind.


----------



## florida pollinator (Jul 31, 2006)

I don't think you will see any keepers make a homemade patty. From what I am told by someone on the inside the dosage is so small that to try it at home you would likely kill the bees.
As for the timing the research was done in tx and ca.They wanted to do a trail in fl but the good folks here(state ag and state beekeepers assoc.) would not sign off on it so the section 18 went out to bfe and we don't have it available.I think it was just the time it took for the information to go through the system.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

.

"On the wild side, this mitochrondial interference is precisely what happens in Parkinsons Disease. Check out the Michael J Fox website."

Not that wild at all! I was reading an article this morning about the relationship between rotenone, the genetics of iron regulation and Parkinson's Disease right before this thread started. This pesticide was also tested by the same group and found to have a similar effect to rotenone. Anyhow, the moral is that these compounds definitely have health effects if they enter the food supply.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>From the people that brought us Apistan and Check-Mite, sterile drones, polluted combs, and dud queens, we now have yet another way to weaken our bees, contaminate out honey, and waste our money: Hivastan. Apply twice a year.

>What are they thinking?

The same thing they were thinking last time? I was at the Kansas Honey Producers meeting last year in March and when one of the scientists was taking questions from the audience, the question was what new chemical was going to replace the current ones and when would it be available. They must have been listening. 

>Michael Bush has suggested using dynamite as a mite treatment.

I haven't actually done the experiement but the current model based on what we know of dynamite, bees, Varroa and their life cycle, predicts that it will be very effective and disloge as well as kill many Varroa.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

don't forget the part about resistance being "futile"

Dave


----------



## Drugstore (Dec 6, 2005)

*We don't need another expensive treatment*

IMO..We need to push for the legal use of Vaporized or dibbled Oxalic Acid.
It is cheaper and more effective.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>They must have been listening.

I'm sure they were Michael. But since when did the government ever give us what we asked for except when it happened to coincide with their own agenda anyways? It's easy to blame the current state of affairs on beekeepers that asked for bigger and better chemical solutions to smaller and smaller problems, but what would the EPA have delivered if they'd been asked for better bees and and sustainable non-chemical methods of pest control?

And what will they say in their own defense when all the bees are dead?


----------



## russbee (Mar 6, 2007)

Another drug, just what we need! What we all need are bee's that can handle varroa w/o treatment and not another drug that we will need to replace within a couple of years due to resistance. Instead of spending all of this money on chemical treatments how about spending more on honeybee genetic's instead.


----------



## hummingberd (Aug 26, 2006)

Aspera said:


> .
> 
> "On the wild side, this mitochrondial interference is precisely what happens in Parkinsons Disease. Check out the Michael J Fox website."
> 
> Not that wild at all! I was reading an article this morning about the relationship between rotenone, the genetics of iron regulation and Parkinson's Disease right before this thread started. This pesticide was also tested by the same group and found to have a similar effect to rotenone. Anyhow, the moral is that these compounds definitely have health effects if they enter the food supply.


Aspera I could have used your help in the tailgater thread I started about inhumane slaughtering practices which turned into an argument in favor of organic foods! Glad people realize that this hivastan is yet ANOTHER bandaid for a cut which keeps growing deeper!!!

-K-


----------



## spunky (Nov 14, 2006)

russbee said:


> Another drug, just what we need! What we all need are bee's that can handle varroa w/o treatment and not another drug that we will need to replace within a couple of years due to resistance. Instead of spending all of this money on chemical treatments how about spending more on honeybee genetic's instead.



Because no one is getting wealthy on it; that is why. This is a government by the corporations for the corporations, and I dont think beeks or the bees really figure into the big picture, like Dow or Pfzier do !!!!!


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I actually believe that the USDA, Marla Spivak, Sue Colby and numerous privately owned breeding companies have done an excellent job of selecting for and disseminating top notch genetics. Unfortunately this is not the total answer. We do however need to look towards more answers that are less hazardous to human health and more ways to make them profitable. So far as genetics go...its already out there, its just not yet widespread.


----------



## Beemaninsa (Jun 9, 2004)

I am using soft treatments. If/when I get in trouble, I may choose a hard treatment. I appreciate another band aid in my box. Any studies on comb contamintion, effect on tricky mites, efficacy rate? Are these patties attractive to fire ants or beetles?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

If genetics are an "answer," it's likely to be a running battle, much like the running battles with chemicals.

As soon as the selective pressures get high, the mites adapt. Doesn't make much difference whether that adaptation is to a chemical or to genetics.

Look again at plant breeders for a good example. Some plant breeders breed for resistance to mites (different mites than Varroa, but mites nonetheless). In trials, mites have been able to overcome even the "best" resistant plant varieties in as few as eight generations (60 days).

So, the plant breeders have to continue creating new, resistant varieties.

Such a system gives some "job security," though.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Yes, I'm sure that there is truth to that. it reminds me of a book that I once read, titled, "The Red Queen" after Alice in Wonderland. The harder you pursue, the faster she runs. The process can go both ways though. It may be that varroa mites eventually become better parasites and will not kill the colonies that they infest.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

That would be my hope, too. 

I'm not suggesting that we give up on "genetics," just that we need to be realistic about the potential.

The other problem (I've suggested it before) is that adaptations in the mites and bees so the bees survive despite the mites (thereby allowing the mites to survive, too), is that we don't really know where that equilibrium point will lie.

If the bees survive, but produce no honey surplus, will that be "acceptable" for beekeepers?

If the bees survive, but produce less honey than they would if they were free of mites, will honey producers be convinced to forego chemical treatments to increase their production (and profit)?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>Instead of spending all of this money on chemical treatments how about spending more on honeybee genetic's instead.


Easy to say, hard to handle. Which route would you like to take, and what other characteristics are you demanding along side. Bees genetics arent as easy to maintain as if your were managing a livestock operation. It is in the bees diverse nature to remain as such, and probably the reason why they have survived from so many years ago.
Now force them to produce for mankind, and you have made the equation much more difficult to manage.

I have heard of first hand experiences of guys holding to their anti chemical, better genetics principles. And frankly those genetics aren't as manageable as they are preaching, and those soft chemicals arnt as reliable as it is mentioned. 
It seems after the first 60-80% loss, they adjust their opinions a bit to remain in business.


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

Ian: I certainly agree that the soft chemicals are not highly reliable. We go thru yards where counts are low and here and there we have hives that have elevated counts (economically damaging). Why? I dunno, why not I suppose. It creates grief. So what to do? Eliminate the poor genetics? It's hardly profitable to kill hives, or let varroa do it for you. I do know that massive losses can be very humbling and the preachers voices may soften after hard blows.

Jean-Marc


----------

