BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 23 May 2011 22:49:44 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (85 lines)
>> Although I agree with you Pete, that it is intuitively obvious that something
>> corrosive enough to damage mites *should* also do *some sort* of damage
>> to bees, I think it is fair to ask return, where is the evidence that this
>> formulation harms the bees?

>Look, I have worked with formic for more than ten years, and I have seen it
>kill queens & bees, so for someone to say it doesn't, they need to prove it.

That is a pretty blunt argument.  Water kills people, but it also can save people.
It all depends on how it is administered.

Let's get serious here and deal with this specific method, not wild generalities.  
We're talking about one specific method of application.  From your comments,
I'm not even sure you know what it is or how it works.  Maybe you do?   If so,
it does not show from your general and non-specific criticisms.

We all know of many ways that formic acid can be applied which do harm, but
that does not necessarily mean there is no way to apply it without significant
harm to bees and brood.  I just don't know.  Bill thinks he does and we're listening.

> Even opening up the hive too much can hurt bees.

This is rhetoric, and not relevant to the topic at hand.

> The burden of proof is on the person claiming that the application of a caustic
> acid to living creatures  does not hurt them, or the honey.

There is too much talk about burdens of proof and that is just a distraction
from dealing with the question IMO.  We all need to consider the question and
come up with our own proof or weigh the probabilities.

To be technical, BTW, acids are not caustic in proper usage.  Try corrosive.

From Wikipedia: "The word 'corrosion' is derived from the Latin verb corrodere
which means 'to gnaw' indicating how these substances seem to 'gnaw' their
way through the flesh. Sometimes the word 'caustic' is used as a synonym but,
by convention, 'caustic' generally refers only to strong bases, particularly alkalis,
and not to acids, oxidizers, or other non-alkaline corrosives. The term 'acid' is
often used imprecisely for all corrosives.

Bill used the word, "Costic" and I understand that English is not his first
language, so I accept that usage as meaning corrosive, but ...

>Use of Formic acid gel resulted in removed drone eggs, delayed drone
>production and reduced adult drone survival. Formic acid may also have
>adverse effects on open brood and hatching bees, depending on ambient
>temperature and device used, although loss of brood did not have a negative
> effect on colony overwintering in mid-European conditions. Formic acid
>produced the highest rate of adult bee mortality (35.3 bees/hive/day) of
> 6 substances tested. From: A Review of Treatment Options For Control of
> Varroa Mite in New Zealand

Can we assume that this study is quoted because it examined the effects of
Mitegone? My understanding is that it did not.

Again, we know that formic can do all sorts of damage and that proponents
often discount that harm, but it is real.  On that we are agreed.

What we are discussing here is whether Bill has derived a method which
prevents or mitigates most or all of that damage.  

He has worked with this and other projects long enough that I am giving
him a good listen and considering the possibility that he may have a better way
to apply the acid that so many of us are planning to apply regardless of all
your objections.

All semantics aside, maybe this is the least destructive method?  It seems that
MAQS has not proven to meet that definition from the reports so far.  Miteaway II
suffered from alternating inefficacy and damaging effects.  Mitewipes, although
better in some ways still can be harmful.  The various European devices are costly,
unhandy, and require handling acid in the field.  etc. etc.

So back the question I asked: "I think it is fair to ask return, where is the
evidence that this formulation harms the bees?"

Evidence, not rhetoric, conjecture and extrapolation, please.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2