Mike Tooley wrote:

> Well,not really.This does need to be brought up from time to time so that
> others can be made aware that fgmo like other unproven treatments isnt a
> sure thing and the possibility for loss exists.

FGMO was tested as a spray many years ago and found to be less effective
than other sprays, such as lactic acid, in dropping Varroa. In addition
it killed more bees. I do not know of any long term independent
scientific study that has shown FGMO to be an effective Varroa control.
I stress independent scientific. One problem is it keeps changing. When
it is shown to have problems, the system is modified- as with screened
bottom boards and now Thymol.

FGMO, like many other marginal Varroa controls, does work to a certain
effectiveness. The problem is, especially from a commercial and labor
(read cost) point of view, it is ineffective compared to other
approaches, even other "bio" methods. It also suffers from not being
consistent in its results, as is evidenced by many dropping out because
of failure.

There appears to be a level of Varroa infestation that can trigger many
other bad things in a hive. Most commercial controls are in the high
90%. FGMO is not. So, with FGMO, you are trying to maintain a moderate
mite level and hoping for the best. If no other triggers come into play,
you can get by. If not, the colony dies. Apistan and Cumophose are
condemned because of their ineffectiveness with resistant Varroa,
because their ability to control varroa drops down into the range of
many bio controls that have to be continually applied.

In essence, you are betting the farm on a marginal treatment when there
are countless easier and more effective controls available. Plus most of
them have gone through serious independent scientific evaluation and passed.


Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

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