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.
|
