Hello martin & All,
I also want to thank Martin for his research post.

> Nosema apis is almost extinct.  After conducting PCR with the appropriate
> primers,  we found out that Nosema Apis has been entirely superseded by
> Nosema ceranae.

This is happening in the U.S. now. Some nosema apis spores can be found but
has little to do with the nosema problems we are having in my opinion.

>We must create a sanctuary to avoid the extinction of Nosema apis...»

Yawn.

>Considering the long and widespread use of fumagillin since 1954 as well as
>its recent intensification, since the recognition of Nosema ceranae, it is
>a miracle we still do not have resistant strains of this parasitic fungus.

I am not sure we do not!

>However, thymerosal (also used as an sterilizing agent in vaccines) is
>extremely toxic to bees even at very low doses.

researchers have looked at this product for years. Crappy drug which can
kill bees if dose is wrong.


< Anyway, the impact on bees was quite hard so we do not consider it a valid
alternative.

I hope you did not spend a lot of time on the project as the product has
been looked at and rejected many times.

>Thymol into patties would be an interesting alternative for an IPM strategy
>focusing at decreasing the level of nosema spores over a long period of
>time, let´s say between 3 to 5 years.

The above is not a strategy I would use. Too slow.

> But you can´t trust thymol for an immediate knock out on Nosema infection.

No *real* proof exists thymol is effective against nosema ceranae ( nor
HBH). Perhaps for slowing the growth but not for a cure to a 15 million
spore per bee issue.


> I know this is in contradiction with the label provided by the
> manufacturer who sells the product, but the results were much better when
> supplying a very concentrated solution.

At last somebody is backing up what I have been saying! I have seen outfits
which fed fumigillin at the lowest label dose see severe nosema  problems. A
concentrated dose is the top IPM measure!

Now before Jerry & Randy chime in that they see hives with 15 million spore
counts per bee *in their opinion* doing great let me remind both that
whatever this pathogen is they suspect is the real culprit HAS NO SOLUTION
( especially if a virus) so the commercial beekeeper has only ONE option.
Which is to treat nosema to try and save the bees.

>Each dose was administered into an internal feeder. We did not use the
>drenching method.

As per label the drench method is for bees which will not take syrup! A
concentrated dose fed in a feeder will work as well *if* the bees are not
off syrup feed.

Taking a deep breath:
Now i will add that drenching is cheaper and faster than feeding fumigillin
the regular way in a syrup feeder. Also if you are a commercial beekeeper in
a remote yard and you fill feeders and plan on returning in 10-14 days and
the bees are not taking syrup then you have lost two weeks. A drench in my
opinion is the better option. As Dr. Eric Mussen says the bees are able to
take the fumigillin when drenched when the bees can't in a feeder. The
drench has a purpose. If not the drench would not be recommended by the 
maker
for bees off feed.

I hope Jerry B. & I can "agree to disagree on the issue" on the drench
issue.

bees dying when drenched in a lab situation could be different than in a
field situation. I see no dead bees when I drench (with a single cup of mix)

>however one of the hives still had substantial amounts of spores but this
>was due to lack of consumption of the medicated syrup.

Fumigillin in the unused syrup will not lower spore counts! Fumigillin has
to be taken up by the bees to work.

bob

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L