Barry Birkey said: > Making a statement like, "Treating varroa mites with Fluvalinate strips > showed actual varroa population increase of 64 percent." deserves a big DUH, > but only after we find out the fact(?) that the bees used in the testing > were resistant to the fluvalinate. Is this a case of pulling selected > information from a study to bolster a products salability? [jhf>] It was pure huckstering and scare tactics. It was a very irresponsible example of what greed can do to some people. (Has anyone ever seen such large print used to try to sell ANY beekeeping product before?) I, for one, have no intention of doing any future business with anyone who goes out of their way to attempt to both mislead and scare beekeepers into buying something of unproven value combined with extreme and known hazards. Part of the "value added" I expect from a vendor is "advise and counsel" in the form of product research and technical knowledge. Dadant, Brushy Mtn, and other vendors offer me their candid opinions and the benefit of their wisdom in every conversation. For example, a recent flyer (Aug/Sept) from Brushy Mtn stated (I quote below, word for word): Check Mite Plus This chemical has been approved in approximately 20 states at this time under and EPA section 18. It is for the Hive Beetle and in certain states, where the use of unapproved chemicals have resulted in the immunity of Varroa Mites to the fluvalinate in Apistan Strips, it is approved for use for Varroa. DO NOT use this chemical unless you have a infestation of the beetle in your brood chamber. Read and follow label instruction to the letter. Very Nasty Pesticide, it is toxic to birds, fish, humans and aquatic animals. OK, no points for grammar, but full marks for substance. THIS is what I would expect all vendors to stress to beekeepers. The same page also contains an "Update On Formic Acid" and a "Beetle Update", both trying to educate, not scare, and both suggesting "normal" treatment practices are the appropriate course of action. Yes, Brushy Mtn can sell you Check-Mite, but I'll bet you'd get an argument from them if you were in a state with no known beetle infestation. At the Virginia State beekeepers' conference this summer, the State Apiarist was questioned closely by all and sundry in a rapid-fire Q&A session about all of the "newly approved" chemicals, and the whole "Section 18" deal. (It turns out that most states simply photocopied Florida's application, and gained approval "just in case".) There was a considerable divergence in the initial views presented by the attendees, but the State Apiarist made a very good point: Don't try to solve a problem that you don't have! If you don't have beetles (we don't in VA), and your mites are not resistant (they aren't in VA), stick with the safest chemical, since harsh treatments tend to "stress" the bees, and hence, reduce bee lifespans. He also asked anyone who thought that they had either hive beetles or "resistant" mites to call his office so that he could send one of his men out to confirm or deny before anyone started tossing ecological hand grenades at their beehives. Barry Birkey further said: > One always must treat statements like this with a grain of salt. [jhf>] I'll go further. A 100-lb BAG of salt. "Technical Update", indeed. I think I'll just mail my copy of the flyer to the EPA and see what they have to say about it to Mann Lake. If I were the EPA, people who write ad copy like that are the last people I would want licensed to distribute any controlled substance.