After receiving several private emails on this thread, I thought I had
better clarify my initial thoughts.  My thanks to those who sent me the
emails.

Others have since elaborated on related issues of chemical use in the hives
and it's safety and I must add, too, that I'm not sure why Walter takes the
views and fears he does regarding this issue except that his last statement
about making a plug for his "pure" honey might be the real motive?

Anyway, I'm in agreement with others that a rotation of approved methods for
mite treatment is good and can extend the usefulness of these methods by
lowering the ability of the mite to become resistant.  However, Dr. Nasr
raises good questions we should be asking about CheckMite.

My main gripe is still with the advertising that Mann Lake used in their
flyer.  One source informed me that they had called Mann Lake and questioned
the same ad.  "In particular I asked about whether the comparison included
Apistan resistant bees.  She(the gal whom answered their sales line)
confirmed this was the case along the lines that "fluvinate resistant bees
seem to be 'everywhere'  - including my home-state which is why I should RUN
to buy CheckMite immediately"."  Another source informed me that in fact the
study done was "not in Clear Lake SD but elsewhere in SD."

Making a statement like, "Treating varroa mites with Fluvalinate strips
showed actual varroa population increase of 64 percent." deserves a big DUH,
but only after we find out the fact(?) that the bees used in the testing
were resistant to the fluvalinate.  Is this a case of pulling selected
information from a study to bolster a products salability?

-Barry

--
Barry Birkey
West Chicago, Illinois
http://www.birkey.com