> So far Apistan (fluvalenate) is the only legal product we have in the
> US. Why do you reject it?
 
Hmmm.  I'm not sure where the original writer is located. If in Canada,
there are two approved treatments for varroa, if in Europe or elsewhere
there are many other possibilities.  Some jurisdictions reached by this
list may not have *any* restrictions.  And FWIW, I don't think the
original writer rejected Apistan at all.
 
Merely asking about the possibility of finding and using alternate
treatments is not the same as actually using them and, to me,  it does
not mean the writer does not use or approve of Apistan.  Asking such
questions is a first step towards deciding if there is a potential
alternate control here.  There are other steps that need to followed
prior to actual use and the matters of detemining safety and approval by
authorities are part of that process.
 
I don't think we can trust the chemical companies, scientists and
regulators to take care of our interests. They simply do not understand
the subtleties as well as we do ourselves.  Moreover, they are not in the
same kind of trouble we are when their solutions fail.  We must ask
questions and look for answers ourselves, all with due regard for the
regulations and procedures for approval, and the safety of the public and
our bees.
 
The additional or different controls that could potentially be used in
beehives that will never produce honey for consumption (how can we ensure
that?) is an interesting question that has never been adequately explored
-- to my thinking anyhow.  Should queen rearers and package bee producers
who never make honey be held to the same standards as the rest of the
industry?
 
Maybe if the equipment for such activities were a differerent,
non-compatible size that will not interchange with standard equipment
(like some types of nucs, or the DE hive) and if everyone knew that such
units must not be used for honey production, different chemical controls
might be approved for queen and bee rearing operations.
 
On the risk side, I suppose, there is always the chance that such
equipment might be robbed by bees that *are* making honey, so that some
risk would still be there, but AFAIK, there is no law against mixing
toxic substances with sweets and leaving them exposed, so I suppose the
hazard already exists.
 
Apistan has been to date a most effective method of varroa control, but it
will likely almost totally lose its effectiveness this year and next in
the USA as the resistant strains of mites are distributed by migratory
beekeepers.  The controls that are currently in the pipeline in the US
depend AFAIK on formic acid.  Formic does work, but has some severe
limitations compared to Apistan, and is not nearly as effective.
 
Yes, we do need to be on the lookout for new and better ways to deal with
varroa.  Unfortunately, from what Dave says, I gather this chemical is not
too promising. but let's keep looking and thinking...
 
Allen
--
Buy, sell, trade, get a job, hire help, announce a
meeting, advertise a business or publication...
For free *beekeeping related* classified ads,
visit http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/BeeAds/
often.  These ads work fast!