Les Roberts said:

> When I read the instructions for apistan and checkmite+ I see it
> says to remove all honey supers.  Now, no matter how I look at
> that, I can't interpret it as anything other than REMOVE ALL
> HONEY SUPERS.

The original question asked about the effects of treatment on
stores left on hives for overwintering use.  It was a very astute
question, since the person asking certainly had "removed all
honey supers", per instructions.

The question boiled down to "Will following the Checkmite
instructions protect your honey crop?"

The answer is "no, not really".

Aaron was merely pointing out the obvious.
The logic is clear and compelling:

a)  Even when following the Checkmite instructions, one still
     is exposing brood chamber comb and stores to Checkmite.

b)  If some fraction of the stores in the brood chamber(s) are not
    consumed by spring (a certainty if one wishes to avoid colony
    starvation), what assurance does one have that the bees will
    not move some or all of that now contaminated honey up to
    the supers?

          None at all.

But that's not all.  There's more than a risk to honey.
There is a much bigger hazard for the beekeeper:

c)  How should one handle the brood combs, frames, and
     woodenware that have been exposed to Checkmite?
     The EPA says:

http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/workerrisk.htm

   "Even with maximum feasible protective clothing
   and engineering controls, calculated risks for most
   OP [organophosphate] workers and handlers still
   exceed the Agency's level of concern. EPA believes
   that an across-the-board increase in risk mitigation
   measures is needed to protect occupational users
   of the OPs."

So, there appears to be no "safe" method known for handling
organophosphates.  There is no known protective gear that
will protect you from the tiny residue levels that have been
proven to cause serious, long-term, chronic, and irreversible
health problems.  The mechanisms for cross contamination
should be obvious to anyone who keeps bees.

Given such depressing information, what is one to do?

First, one must consider why "Section 18s" for Checkmite
were requested and granted in the first place.  Reports of
Apistan resistance became commonplace.  The mere
number of reports was an effective rebuttal to pesticide
manufacturer claims that the sole cause of resistance
was misuse by beekeepers, but no one seemed to have
picked up on this.

Instead, all that we did was ratchet the arms race up another
notch with a pesticide that is several orders of magnitude more
dangerous than the last one.  If one were to accept the
accusations of the pesticide companies about "misuse" as true,
this was akin to issuing hand grenades to a group that could not
be trusted to use flyswatters safely.

All of this forces one to wonder what happens after what comes next.

"What comes next" is highly predictable - the appearance of
widespread resistance to not only Apistan, but also Coumaphos.
It should not be hard for anyone to see this, as it has been the
normal course of events with all pesticides and pests, regardless
of specifics.

"What happens after" is unclear.  One would hope that
we will learn from our experiences, and realize that any
pesticide is, at best, a stop-gap measure that creates a
pesticide-resistant strain of pests as the "price" of use.

So, how can one control varroa without creating resistance?

There are approaches that are deadly to varroa, but non-toxic
to both humans and bees.

Unfortunately, the materials used in these approaches are cheap
and readily available, and thus cannot generate profits for trans-national
chemical and drug companies.  As a result, they are not well-promoted,
and have not enjoyed the research funding focused upon products that
can generate profits.

These are methods of killing varroa that exploit weaknesses in Varroa's
physiology, rather than employing ever more toxic substances in
brute-force attempts to poison them.

There are at least two credible approaches that exploit the
physiology of the varroa mite:

1)  Food Grade Mineral Oil

      FGMO has been the subject of many derisive comments,
      but Dr. Pedro Rodriguez and his associates say that they
      have seen impressive results using nothing else:

          "untreated (control) colonies die within the same year...
          ...colonies in the same group treated with FGMO
          have survived for four years."

    By way of explanation, Dr. Rodriguez uses a low velocity,
    high volume, low temperature "fogging" apparatus to deploy
    a cloud of FGMO that is a (roughly) 15 micron mist.  The
    good news is that the required device retails for under
    $70 US.  The mechanism by which fogged FGMO kills
    varroa is explained thusly:

         "Mineral oil blocks the spiracles of the mites
          causing their death by asphyxia. While honey
          bees also breathe the oil, the size of their spiracles
          is much larger than that of the mites, thus it is
          possible to utilize mineral oil as an acaricide
          without harming the honey bees. Also the body
          of the mites is covered by pores which the mites
          utilize to take in moisture for their hydration.
          These pores are also blocked by mineral oil..."

     In short, the reported colony survival rate is better
     than what we have seen with pesticide strips.

2)  There is also the work of Dr. Fakhimzadeh with
     powdered sugar, as he described in Summer 2000
     and subsequent issues of ABJ.

     A dusting of 15 - 20 micron sized particles of
     powdered sugar clogs up the tarsal pads of varroa,
     making them loose their grip on bees, comb, whatever.
     A varroa mite that can't hang on is soon lying on its
     back below the screened bottom board.

     I've seen sugar-dusting work with my own eyes on
     my own colonies for multiple seasons.  The results
     have been impressive.

Since Dr. Rodriguez's method of "fogging a colony" takes only
a tiny fraction of the time that it takes to sugar-dust, and sugar
dusting was cutting into my leisure time, I will cease sugar
dusting this summer, and try to learn FGMO fogging techniques.

The good news is that both techniques can be used when
honey supers are on the hive.  One would want to treat when
supers are on, since this is when varroa populations build up
to dangerous levels.  (Of course, treating with supers on is
impossible when one uses pesticides.)

That's right, I'm going to bet my bees, my honey crop, and
my beekeeping revenue on the word of a small number of
people.  Why?  Because these folks have no incentive
whatsoever to make any of this stuff up.  Unlike the chemical
and drug companies, they will not make a dime off me, you,
or anyone else who follows their approach.  Heck, they likely
won't even get a nice plaque for their efforts.

To summarize:

1)  An anecdotal report can be dismissed as "delusional".
2)  A group of anecdotal reports can be dismissed as a "cult".
3)  Consistent anecdotal reports are much harder to dismiss.
4)  Pesticides have yet to be proven effective in beekeeping.
5)  Science should not be confused with marketing, or visa-versa.

        ji