Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 31 Jul 1996 10:36:32 -0700 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Re. Use of Formic Acid
I have been following the discussion on formic acid (FA) with interest.
I suppose the unfamiliarity with the product causes some US beekeepers
to speculate on the dangers of the product. Indeed, the fact that ants
have been named after it and that the product does occur naturally in
honey, does not make the product benign. It is potentially hazardous
to the applicator when used irresponsibly but are there not scores of
products we use daily that pose equal or even greater health threats?
One that comes to mind is gasoline which has a high oral and dermal
toxicity, extremely flammable and whose fumes harbor all kinds of
hideous dangers. Do we worry about it when visiting the gasstation? I
suppose its 'structured' and familiar usage has allowed us to become
complacent apart from the fact that if something goes wrong at the gas
station, we can blame the supplier.
In the beeyard, the use of FA can pose a risk but if used prudently and
handled in a prescribed 'standardized' method, it can be of minimal
threat to the operator. Since the product has been made available in
Canada for use in bee hives, the suppliers have made FA available in
65% concentration. This negated the need for producers themselves to
dilute the 85% concentration down. This step signified the removal of
a major hazard.
Here in British Columbia as well in as other parts of the country,
trials and experiments have been carried out in improving FA
application methods. We have in BC a factsheet available on FA
applications methods (e.mail available). Ever since FA became widely
used in the province, we have not been aware of any beekeeper seriously
affected by the use of FA.
As someone else already pointed out, FA is not the 'silver bullet' we
all like to have in controlling mites. Matter of fact when (climatic)
conditions are not right, an FA application may turn out utterly
useless and probably needlessly injurious to the bees. Our experience
has clearly shown that FA efficacy remains partially uncertain and very
dependent on the right conditions. Also, as a matter of normal
beekeeping practice, it is important for beekeepers to replace their
queens annually or at least every other year. FA applications do cause
increased queen mortality. The queens themselves are not necessarily
knocked off but perhaps the pheremone release and communication with
workers is sufficiently disrupted to lead to her demise. Many
producers apply FA in the late summer/early fall and if a queen is then
lost later (unknownst to the beekeeper), the colony will be dead by
next spring. Colonies with younger, vigorous queens have shown much
better survival rates.
FA has its drawbacks but I believe it is a valuable and important tool
in the fight against mites. Also, FA enables the beekeeping community
to broaden its arsenal in controlling varroa ,instead of solely relying
on Apistan which apart from high costs, may lessen its efficacy in the
future because of mite resistance.
I am afraid the greatest hurdle faced by US beekeepers is the
bureaucratic maze they have to travel through to get FA approved for
use in honeybee colonies. Good Luck!
Paul van Westendorp
Provincial Apiarist
British Columbia
|
|
|