# essential oils and crisco



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

A few commercial beekeepers I know mix Amitraz or Maverik with vegetable shortening and smear on the top frames for mite control.

Could the same method be used with thymol or some other essential oil, mixing it with vegetable shortening and putting it on the top bars for mite control? I bet it's been done. Any comments or suggestions or testimonials? How much oil would you use per unit of vegitable shortening?

Thanx,
Rob Bliss


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

A few <edit- exceptionally irresponsible> commercial beekeepers I know mix Amitraz or Maverik with vegetable shortening and smear on the top frames for mite control.

I always think how incredible it is to hear people are still using these products this way.

Vegetable shortening is falling our of favor for any use in hives at it greatly contributes to the success of small hive beetles. If you are interested in Thymol for mite control I would suggest you research fogging with FGMO and Thymol.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

I'm a tad confused here.

I agree that Amitraz and Maverik are not approved
for use in the USA, and that their use by any
beekeeper is exceptionally irresponsible, but 
I was not aware that it was "responsible" to
fog thymol.

There are several approved formulations of thymol
available, and when used as directed, they are
both responsible and effective, so why would one
want to make *the same exact mistake* as the 
"commercial" beekeepers mentioned?


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

Some of the early research on essential oils was done I believe at University of Virginia. In the study I read they used wintergreen and/or other essential oils mixed in sugar syrup with a food grade emulsufier, they also mixed the essential oil with crysco and put it near the inner cover, they also smeared it on plastic strips which were placed at the entrance in such a way as to force the bees coming and going from the hive to walk over it. The plastic strips were also used as a monitoring device because they could be examined for mites trapped in the grease, cleaned and recoated and put back. The authors reported good success by using a combination of all three methods. The only counterindication they mentioned was that it should not be used in such a way that the queen was likely to come in direct contact with the wintergreen, or at all if there were sealed queen cells or virgin queens in the hive. They felt that the essential oils interefered with the bees ability to distinguish the queen pherimones and reduce breeding success and/or acceptance of the queen by the hive.

If you google for Wintergreen Oil, Varroa Mite treatment you can probably find this study.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Jim, You don't really belive that thymol is anything (much less exactly) like either Amitraz or Mavrik, Do you??! 

[ October 23, 2006, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> ...was done I believe at University of Virginia...

Please don't blame UVA, it was *WEST* Virginia.








http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/varroa06.htm
But, as you can read in the page linked above,
they are now advocating the use formic acid, which
makes the essential oils seem like an irrelevant
add-on to the known mite control one can get
from careful use of formic acid products.

> Jim, You don't really belive that thymol is 
> anything (much less exactly) like either 
> Amitraz or Mavrik, Do you??! 

It was not the similarity of the *chemicals*
I was commenting upon, it was the irony of the 
identical error being made, suggesting the use
of _another_ ad-hoc treatment when making
negative comments about the use of an ad-hoc
treatment. 

While specific Thymol products are approved for
use in beehives, these approvals do not grant
anyone carte blanc to mix up their own version 
of the approved products and "fog" them into 
hives.


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

Jim:

After thirty years of following professional journals in veterinary medicine I have become conviced of a few things.

1. What was absolute right thing thirty years ago, was an absolute no-no, twenty years ago, became the latest and greatest ten years ago, and will be antiquated and worthless today. Tomorrow it may be the best thing since ice cream was invented.

2. The result of most research reflects the bias with which the particular grad studen entered the study.

3. The summary of research results and eventual government approval of any drug is directly related to who finances the research grant.

4. The coorilation between what is seen in research and what happens in the field falls a long way short of 100%.

5. Nothing tastes exactly the same when two different people follow the same recipe.

I just try not to ignore any of the old stuff and try to find a mix of old and new that works for me.


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

Sorry about the UVA/West Virginia blunder. From out here all them eastern states look the same.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Jim, my comment wasn't about the fact the commericial beekeepers were using an ad-hoc treatment, I would think it was obvious that the concern would be the continued use of over abused Toxins such as Amitraz and Mavrik and then combining them with grease patties which have been clearly shown to contribute to increase mite populations. Of course you and I both know Thymol has been tested and is safe and of course you can eat FGMO. Perhaps you would like to try, say a teaspoonful of Mavirk next time your in the horsebarn and then make the same argument.

As far as Adhoc treatments, do you use a smoker, what do you burn in your smoker? Can you show me anything that states your adhoc fuel is safe? Are you suggesting the use of food grade mineral oil and thymol is not safe? Not effective? (please see Beesource thread relating to this adhoc treatment)

Of course being an Ivy League scholar you understand the fallacy of pesenting and argument that states something (an error) is identical and different in the same paragraph.  

I'll ad one more thing to Sierra's list

-Once the university gets the money to do the test (Dyce Lab for example $50,000 from Senator Randy Kuhl in year 1 for Thymol reasearch) The research is no longer about solving a problem but about whatever it is that happens in academia that takes it 5 years to do a 2 yr. study and publish it.

[ October 25, 2006, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Joel, I meant nothing more than what I said.
I just thought it was a real knee-slapper, that's all.

> do you use a smoker, what do you burn in your smoker?

Ah, I see... rather than just joining the laughing
crowd, you want to argue the point. OK, I'll play... 
you can read here  what I know about smoke and smokers.

> Are you suggesting the use of food grade 
> mineral oil and thymol is not safe? 

I am stating without reservation that it is
not an approved (legal) way to treat hives
for anything in the USofA. As far as "safe"
goes, I don't care, as I can't sell honey
from hives I might treat with that concoction.

> Not effective? 

Let's not change the subject. We don't need 
to argue efficacy, the discussion you started 
was about "legal" treatments versus "illegal" 
treatments, and the relative "ethics" of some beekeepers. 
(Back when it was "legal", the beekeeper 
version of Amitraz was VERY effective.)

> Of course being an Ivy League scholar...

I resent that! I am a Red Sox fan, and they
are in the _American_ League!









> The research is no longer about solving a 
> problem but about whatever it is that happens 
> in academia that takes it 5 years to do a 2 yr. 
> study and publish it.

Such a cynical view is discouraging, but I'll
be sure to pass along your comments to the
boys who work so hard at the Dyce Lab. I'm sure
that your enthusiasm and positive attitude will
just make their day!


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{Such a cynical view is discouraging, but I'll
be sure to pass along your comments to the
boys who work so hard at the Dyce Lab.}

Jim, I think we all used to threaten to tell on people - when we were in kindergarten!  

Acually though there's no need, I already expressed my opinions there. Yes the boys there work hard. However I'm not sitting on the sidelines complaining. I attended meetings at Dyce, worked tirelessly on a committee that wrote letters to and met with then NYS legislator Randy Kuhl and garnered $50,000 dollars of tax money that re-invorgated Dyce lab when Dr. Calderone took over in the mid 1990's. This was on the promise of research aimed at new treatments to control varroa. This allowed them to hire the assistants and get started on the essential oil research. Instead the Cornell Master Beekeeper program (something local clubs or EAS were already doing extremely well) was developed and beekeeper students were over charged for courses and given industry stunning teachings like storing empty equipment under active beehives in the winter and given samples of "honey" to taste that even the most novice student pointed out was not honey resulting in the instructor sheeplessly admitting that it was sugar water that was feed and converted by the bees. The class was in July as I recall, a time when most rookie beekeeper in our area have some honey in their supers. Somehow I guess I think that spending tax money gives taxapayers the expectation of real time results to real time problems. Of course I said nothing nothing deragtory about Dyce Lab in my posts, you put those words in my mouth. My statement is that I came to the realization that all universities (such as Cornell) are conducting research it becomes as much or more about education (yes it is a college I understand that) than about industry saving researn. Next time I will work to see that money goes to research at one of the Bee Labs. But please, please don't tell on me!!  

<the discussion you started 
was about "legal" treatments versus "illegal" 
treatments, and the relative "ethics" of some beekeepers>

Please Highlight for me where I mentioned legality or ethics in my posts. I beleive the statements made were in relation to toxcitity and recent findings that Grease patties increased beetle loads. I would appreciate you not mis-representing your mis-interpretations as my statments! 

<Ah, I see... rather than just joining the laughing crowd,>

Jim, you are an intellegent and provocative poster, I enjoy your perspectives, you are not however a crowd. On the comedy thing, don't give up the day job.
 

I of course have been a long supporter of your postions in past threads, the recent attempts at levitiy have been a total loss for us who came to love and respect the pointed and scientific approach that was your norm. 
I respect your opinion on non-approved methods 
I expected (and hoped for) more from you regarding your scientic perspective of the questions I asked. I appreciate your recent attempts at humor, what I respect is your scientifically trained mind and matter of fact answers to questions. Agree or disagree with me on the should we issue, where's the substance of theory on the efficacy! You totally avoided the issue of safety by trying to frame my statements and points other than I stated them.

Perhaps instead of trying to be funny you could actually address some of my arguments!









[ October 28, 2006, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

Joel, Jim, et. al

I just finished reading the posts on the spread of AHB in a different thread and it reminded me of the overly critical post I recently made here which seems to have been the beginning of a downward spiral. I appologize to everyone for my negative comments about reasearch. I do have strong opinions, but I should know better than to state them in such a way as to trigger general negativity or put someone else in a defensive position.

Sorry


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

sierrabees, I agreed with you. After observing research, science and medicine all my life I've come to pretty much the same conclusions. Give them time they will come back full circle.

Many a "harmless" thing has turned out to be very harmful. Many a "harmful" thing has turned out to be harmless. I have much better luck sticking with common sense and watching for the next cycle.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Sierra, don't view Jim's and my exchange as negative. I have a great deal of respect for him and he knows that from many past debates. Jim is very knowlegable and has done and does a great deal for the industry including donating the profits from his Fishers BeeQuick to research. He is generally on the forefront of knowing what is going on research wise in the industry and has an execptionally well trained analytical thought process. He is hopelessly in the mind set of acadamia (and I should mention a Red Soxs fan)! Debates here are often animated and sometimes pointed, but they are simply that, debates. I consider him, like many here, a friend. Jim can take it and he can dish it out. That usually leads to some challenging, spirited debate and a considerable amount of new and in depth information being posted. When you see him post about me doing something that is (in his view) knee slapping stupid or me picking on him for his lame attempts at comedy picture two friends accross the table laughing up their sleeves at what the other has posted. We do, on a regular basis, hand Jim a good thrashing to keep his head from exploding for being so smart!

MB really frames the issue best, it is about common sense! I understand Jims' point regarding the use of un-approved treatments, they have created many nightmares for the industry over the years.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> the recent attempts at levitiy have been a 
> total loss for us who came to love and respect 
> the pointed and scientific approach that was 
> your norm.

OK, that makes *one* of you...









> You totally avoided the issue of safety by 
> trying to frame my statements and points other
> than I stated them.

Perhaps so, but "safety" to me means "what's legal?", 
as the only way anyone can avoid product
liability issues is to stick to the fully legit
stuff, the stuff that both the feds and your
state overtly say "are allowed". Within the
context of "what's legal", the issue of "what's
safe" is something that does not correlate to
"what's legal". For example, let's look at all
the choices out there... beekeepers can use a 
*freakin' ORGANOPHOSPHATE* in their hives 
in many states for Varroa and, in some states for SHB.

What's next on the escalation scale after one
uses an organophosphate? Short-range tactical 
battlefield nuclear weapons? You tell me.

If one were to construct a graph with 
"ethical/legal" on the vertical axis, and 
"efficacy" on the horizontal axis, you'd end
up with a very interesting spread of dots, as
in those states where the regulatory types have
gotten a Section 18 for CheckMite "for SHB",
they know darn well that beekeepers are buying
it and using it for varroa. The only reason
that they are playing this little game is that
they have to "fight" with the EPA to get them to 
allow multiple Section 18s for the same pest,
so if you want a full arsenal, they can't all
be "for varroa", now can they?

As far as grease patties go, they were a very
good idea back before one could order up
tracheal mite resistant bees with the same
ease as one could order a pizza, but anyone
still seeing tracheal mites needs to demand 
full refunds from their queen/package producer,
and find a different supplier, as those bees 
are *defective* if they are not tracheal 
mite resistant.

> don't view Jim's and my exchange as negative.

Certainly not! These discussions are a full-body
contact sport. No quarter is expected, and 
mostly, none is given. Whining is simply tedious.

> He is hopelessly in the mind set of acadamia

I are? That's news to me, as I see a lot of
"academics" as being way behind the curve in
terms of the use to which their work is put
in the apiary. They'd be "shocked, shocked"
to find out that beekeepers are still using
25-year-old treatments in the same ad-hoc way
they used them 25 years ago, and selling the
honey wholesale to packers.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

>A few commercial beekeepers I know mix Amitraz or Maverik...

>beekeepers can use a freakin' ORGANOPHOSPHATE...

>I was commenting upon, it was the irony of the
identical error being made,...

Hey Jim, there's nothing new under the sun :>)

Most of those commercial guys that used that stuff have poisoned themselves out of the bee business. And the few that haven't will soon be there, when the same testing standards, that are required for foreign honey imports, are applied to domestic production.

Putting pesticides in a beehive is a bankrupt concept, especially in a honey's niche market. It's the perception and promotion that honey is HEALTHIER than other sweeteners that makes the sell.

Soon, it won't be enough to just say "PURE" on the jar makes it so. I suspect that a two tiered market could develop. Those that use non-contaminating methods and can prove it. And the other junk.

I drew the pesticide line back in '96, a decade ago. Then, there wasn't a single alternative to the pesticide treadmill. Today, there's lots of information and quite a few choices. Why anyone would choose it is a mystery to me. Leaving the pesticide treadmill isn't about substituting one poison for another, even though some are much worse than others. It's a whole different approach to the problem.

I haven't seen a hive beetle yet, but if it takes organophosphates to keep bees with them, I'm out of the bees. I suspect that the same approach to the hive beetles parallels those of the varroa mite. The results, pesticides are seen as the only solution. And just like varroa, someone will decide to take another approach and will succeed.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

<Most of those commercial guys that used that stuff have poisoned themselves out of the bee business.>

I'd be extremely interested to see this list, I know and talk to many of them. I don't know any who are going out of business because of toxic substance use. In fact most are going out because they can't beat the disease and pest. Some of the stuff being used is just plain scary!

Dennis, before you agree too quickly with Jim realize that under his guidelines using oxalic acid or powdered sugar is EQUAL to using Mavrik or Ammitraz because they are not approved in the US as Mite treatments and therefore illegal. That puts you, by his standard into the same grouping as those using the toxins. That's the whole brunt of our debate. 

I can't debate this with Jim, he's arguing apples, I'm aruing oranges.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Joel and Everyone,

>see this list...
I've talked to quite a few of them in California. They admit to spraying just about everything in their hives to keep them alive, without success. I personally know of several 4000+ hive outfits that couldn't even keep 250 hives alive despite(or maybe because of) their efforts!

I understand the predicament these guys are in. Many of them are third or fourth generation beekeepers. And they are willing to try any fast and easy solution to stay in business. They need fast and easy because of the very narrow margins most beekeepers run on. 

But much of the problem they find themselves in, is a result of their own management. Many substituted cheaper ag chems, treated animal feeds, etc. and applied them with variable treatment exposures/dosages to save a dime. And they used them as a prophylactic on every hive. Then, to top it off, many didn't even monitor the results.

In addition, very few of them rotate their comb. I've worked in outfits with brood comb over 80 years old. It's harder and tougher than shoe leather!

So, it's no wonder they find themselves deluged with resistant disease and pests. And I know of a few commercials who've seen the advantage of clean equipment and periodically sells off the old stuff to replace it with the new and uncontaminated. If I were purchasing anyones used bee business/equipment, I'd check it out for more than just foul!

I do agree with Jim and he's right. The principle of using oxalic, sugar, mav*** or tac*** is the same, although some are much worse to use than others. But they all have drawbacks/side effects. 

I suspect, like Sierrabee alluded, it's only a matter of time before we will have a few more questions about the organic acids. If not from the bees end, probably from the beekeepers end, as some will figure if it's so benign for the bee, then why should the beekeeper take any extra precautions!

What's needed in the long term, is not another magic poison. The list of these gets longer every day. Another new one is condensed milk with peppermint. My bees don't need it, but I may try this one out on myself :>) But what's needed is another approach entirely.

It wasn't until I realized it, that I got on the right track.

I'm not condemning anyone using chems. I think anyone using them ought to migrate to the softer stuff, for their own safety. But I know there's an even better approach. It's not fast. Nor initially , easy. But it works. And it doesn't involve anything more than keeping a clean broodnest, with the right kind of comb. That's where I'm at now.

I will use the oxalic if I have to. But I haven't needed to use it, except for a few of my experiments.

On my web pages, I talk about powdered sugar and oxalic as crutches to assist a beekeeper toward this end. If a beekeeper stops there, he's alot better off than putting mav***, tac**, cor*** in with the bees environment. The risk is mostly with the beekeeper and not the consumer when using the soft stuff.

>That puts you, by his standard into the same grouping as those using the toxins....

I don't see Jim saying that. But, I've been there before. When I suggested that soft chems be used as a crutch when migrating to small cell comb, I got the same label from many who strictly follow the Lusby's methods. :>)

Regards
Dennis
Wondering how many beekeepers will try to figure out what mav***, tac**, cor*** is :>)))


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

On another note, back when treating in the last century, I tried several essential oils. And I tried them in syrup as reported, in FGMO long before the Dr. R, on blue shop towels, and in crisco patties.

Going from those pesticides listed in the first post, to essentials oils with crisco, is a great step in the right direction. In fact, it was the first step I took away from the strips during the last century. But there is so much more experience and knowledge about this subject now, than there was then, that no one should have to repeat the experience. 

Go straight to what works! 

But if anyone is still interested, I will share my essential oil experience.

Regards
Dennis

[ October 30, 2006, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: D. Murrell ]


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Dennis, thanks for some great information here and on your site. It's easy when you are trying to keep bees alive and a business going to fall into the trap of quick answers. We (my associate and travel mate who went out last year after 25 yrs) saw a marked increase in queen supercedure the 1st. (and last) year we used Cumophos for Varroa. That was my wake up call to find different solutions. I have been looking at small cell for several months but I need foundation/frames I can migrate, don't need to regress bees on to and is competitively priced. I am going to do a yard next year by starting nucs on drawn small cell and comparing it. We had great success with mites this year and used nothing but FGMO & thymol. The use of sbb at this point does not seem feasable for migration.

I'd would certainly be interested to hear about your essential oil experiance. I am aware that there is info out there indicating wintergreen oil added to grease patties nixes the beetle issue and of course likely contributes to the curbing of trachael mites by making it difficult to locate the expelled hydrocarbons from larvae.

By the way, I've been to Casper and also explored the mines on the Wind River Indian Reservation. Beautiful country but darned cold in January!


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Joel,

Before I share my essential oil stuff, I'll share something else. Almost all the benefits touted by small cell beekeepers is the result of a clean broodnest rather than cell size. The small cell size allows the bees to take care of the mites without the pesticides and keeps the broodnest clean when compared to contaminating chems. It's the best solution I've found so far. But it's not the only solution.

When asked by the commercial beekeepers about my approach. I had to recommend using a non-contaminating treatment initially and then phasing in clean comb in the broodnest. Most use plastic frames/foundation. Scrapping them and re-using them is an economic option when the benefits of a clean broodnest are combined with a non-contaminating treatment.

In conjuction, I'd recommend testing out small cell, for themselves, on limited basis, to determine costs and feasibility. It can be phased in, if desired, gradually once the bees are stabilized on clean comb.

I know not all beekeepers have the time or inclination to go the small cell route. But if they get clean and can stay clean, that's a long way from organophosphates and a contaminated broodnest.

There's a widespread movement among many commercial beekeepers to use oxalic dribbling. It's effective. It's non-contaminating. And it's cheap. Not much is said by them, but you will see those 140lb bags of oxalic in their warehouses. In front of all those empty cases of checkmite strips :>)

Now for the oils.

When I first decided to get off the pesticide treadmill, I was raising queens and saw what apistan was doing to them. There were no other alternatives in this country. So, I did a little research about what the rest of the world was doing. Tobacco smoke and the organic acids were being used. Oxalic was promoted by the Eastern Europeans who used a hazmat type suit and elaborate pumps/heaters. Not my idea of a softer treatment, then.

Formic was easy to obtain. So, I gave it a test. It was very volatile and triggered queen supercedes as applied the European way.

Tobacco smoke was out, as I figured it would kill me before it killed the mites.

When preliminary reports on essential oils were made my Noel ? in a letter to the editor of a bee mag. I decided I would do a few tests.

I obtained wintergreen, spearmint, peppermint and a few others. These were feed, in syrup, at the rates suggested in the letter. These oils retarded the mite buildup. Wintergreen was most effective. The peppermint seemed to aggravate or slightly irritate the bees.

But to be effective, some syrup had to be feed almost continuously. Once the syrup stopped, the mite buildup would begin. Using syrup wasn't practical.

Noel ? had found the same and made a beeswax/vaseline? emulsion that was applied to the landing board. I initially tried adding it with vegetable oil, at different concentrations and some with sugar or honey added, to a blue paper shop towel place above the broodnest. But the shop towels had to be replaced about every two weeks. And vegetable oil wasn't very stable, so FGMO was substituted. Then the grease patty, which was already being used, was tried. It would last about 3 weeks before another application was needed. As a fall treatment, the bees would consume some of it and propolize the rest up.

The results were the same. As long as the bees were in contact with the towel or the patty, the mite load didn't increase. But the minute they propolized the patty or dragged out the shop towel, the mite load would begin to increase.

I observed another negative side effect in the queen rearing. It seemed that a lot of queens had trouble returning from mating flights. I would find them running around the outside of the nucs, unable or unwilling to use the entrance of a nuc with an essential oil treatment. The queens properly oriented a few days after the treatments were removed. I abandoned there use after that.

At the time, my mind was still on the pesticide treadmill. I was looking for a soft poison that would kill all the mites without the side effects and contamination of the strips. In this respect, essential oils were interesting, but not a replacement. They were still relatively toxic. And the frequent/constant application was very labor intensive and increased the risk of contamination. They were interesting, but not suitable for a commercial operation.

A friend of mine, with 3500 hives, observing my results, decided to incorporate an essential oil in the fall treatment with his grease patties. He wasn't impressed with them as a long term mite treatment, but swears they did away with all signs of chalkbrood in his outfit.

Regards
Dennis
Thinking it's terribly cold(single digits) right now in Wyoming. And it's not even January yet

[ October 31, 2006, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: D. Murrell ]


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

Dennis,
Thank you for all of your posts and particularly for this one that finally addressed my origional question at the beggining of this thread.

I'll probably stay away from grease patties after what you've said. I am planning on starting many small cell hives in the spring as an experiment to see how they do.

I just want to use as mild of chemicals as possible until I find out what works to go chemical free, wheather it's small cell, hygenic bees, clean comb, whatever. I appreciate your experience and willingness to share this experience. 

Thank you Joel and Jim too. Jim, you help keep me grounded as I sometimes do have a tendancy to want to try methods that are "unproven." 

-Rob


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

This may be a bit off topic but I would like to point out that organophosphates are used and will continue to be used medically (instead of as bug killers) for a very long time. On the other hand, many hapless babies drown in tap water every year. My point is that every chemical has the potential for use/misuse. For the purpose of determining how to best use therapeutics, scientific research and democratically driven policy is usually a better alternative than trial and error impericism. If industry has urgent needs that universities cannot or will not meet, the solution is clear: do it yourself. Scientific research is not the sole realm of universities, nor do I think it should be. In fact, I would argue that profit driven research has NO place in the unversity system. And for those that would advocate common sense as the sensible solution I would further argue that there is nothing common about good horse sense. I have seen appearently sane people perform carefully comtemplated actions that ranged from the idiotic to the murderous. For instance, it was once "common sense" that the US should government manage the freedoms and wealth of some races because it was widely accepted (in both the North and South) that some races lacked the common sense to act in their own best interest.


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

Aspera

That pretty well summs it up.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Dennis, very interesting feedback on essential oils. FGMO and Thymol have been very successful for us this year. It was easy to use, clearly effective, low impact and safe.

With what you are saying it accurate to deduce the old small cell combs would become as susceptible to mite or that keep standard size cell foundation but keeping it new would be as effective?


----------

