superbee wrote:
 > Hi Bill, If there was such a need to use Checkmite, you have by your
 > own admission never used it, then how come you still have bees?

My mites were not yet Apistan resistant. Had they been so, I would have
probably lost my bees and gone fishing.
I shifted to Oxalic Acid last year, but that was not an alternative when
cumophose came on the scene. Plus, in using oxalic acid, I am slightly
illegal (but not immoral and working on the fattening).

 >It is
 > the responsibility of the USDA and the chemical companies to make sure
 > that products on the market conform to certain standards and that
 > they are not harmful to consumers, users and that the effects on
 > animals/plants being treated are not detrimental.

snip

 >The reason we are told was the research and development
 > cost involved, well I suppose if you believe that, then you'll
 > believe anything, I prefer to use the word "greed".  The USDA and
 > Bayer knew that Varroa would become resistant to Apistan and should
 > have commenced testing Checkmite properly before it became necessary
 > to get a Section 18 issued.  Why is Checkmite so expensive?  Because
 > of R&D?  If so, then it hasn't been carried out properly and someone
 > is at fault.

For the market- beekeepers- it is expensive since it is such a small
market you cannot amortize your costs over a large base. So stuff costs
more especially when the US government is involved. There is an apparent
conflict in arguing for more tests and decrying increased costs.

I forget the manufacturer, but some time back a group of beekeepers
effectively drove a tracheal mite control off the market because they
sued the manufacturer for over wintering kills to their colonies. The
whole thing was a bit suspect on both sides, but it convinced the
manufacturer to get out of the bee business. I was told it would have
made a good varroa control, so we would have had two controls on the
market instead of just Apistan.

Bayer certainly does not need our market. I am amazed that any large
pesticide company puts money and resources into such a niche market,
especially when you look at all the drawbacks and cost compared to the
larger markets.

Another thing that I do not understand and welcome enlightenment is why,
since cumophose was in use in Europe long before it was approved in the
US, were the problems with queens not high in visibility? If only in the
US, then what are the differences between the US formulation and that in
Europe?

Bill Truesdell (who intends to sue the weatherman unless the weather
gets better in NE)
Bath, Maine

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::