I have tried to stay out of the negative FGMO comments on this list. But
now I realize it's time to put my two cents on the subject. I have made
a few comments below.
 
Adrian Wenner wrote:
>
>    Several on the list have commented about the apparent fuzziness in
> research protocol that we have encountered with respect to the use of
> various oils to treat mites, as well as funding for such research.
>
>    I will comment about only a few of the points raised:
>
> 1)   Jerry Bromenshenk wrote (in part):
>
> >....In the U.S., most Research Grants REQUIRE Publication and Dissemination
> >of Results - they do not impose a gag on the investigator.  Failure to
> >publish in Peer-Reviewed Journals will bring one's research to an end in a
> >hurry.  Most academic and national laboratory research falls into this
> >category.
>
>    My comment:   If I remember correctly, Dr. Pedro indicated that he >would
> publish his techniques and results of experimentation so that we could >all
> have the opportunity to independently assess the quality of work and
> successful results he has alluded to.  So far, I have not seen such an
> account appear in print.  (I want to see the data.)
>
 
I remember Dr. Rodriguez said everyone could look up his comments
submitted earlier to this group. If he resubmitted every time someone
asked him to there would be alot of wasted space in the achives of the
list.
 
As for funding for research who are you trying to kid, I don't believe
for a minute FGMO could get the same attention as Apistan or some other
chemical with big bucks behind them.  They know once aproved by big
brother the company has a monopoly going for them, I would'nt doubt that
some of the comments against FGMO on this list are from people that want
to save their research funding. After all if something as simple as FGMO
is proven to work then who needs apistan and all the other chemicals and
acids. Since it is food grade and already has approval to be used
around food products it also can silence the EPA.
 
>    [Roy Nettleback said much the same in his comment:  "Your work is not
> lost. It needs a published research paper that can pass the test of the
> scientific community."]
>
> >[Bromenshenk again: ....I encourage every beekeeper to help promote and
> >sponsor >critical research.
> >But if you send your check, you have a right to expect a full >accounting of
> >what you paid for (how was the money spent, what was the research, >what are
> >the results?).  There are many good researchers in this world who >would be
> >more than glad to have some support for a bit of equipment, or a >student.
> >And many are non-profit.
>
 
I would like to hear from one researcher that doesn't think that FGMO is
a waste of time, and is going to include test on FGMO this summer. Like
the wise old drone on the left coast always says get down to real bee
research on what beekeepers really what to hear about and not just BS.
 
 
>    My comment:   Only rarely would a person working alone be able to do >all
> the experimentation, keep all the records and books, and send full >reports
> to all those who contributed money.  That is why we have university, >USDA,
> and state research groups.  The "overhead" from their grants provides wages
> for people to do much of the routine paperwork.  (The sponsored >researcher,
> though, must still write the proposals and reports.)
>
> *********
>
Now you said it, sponsored researcher, sponsored by the big chemical
companies. I am sure I would never get the same access as they get with
my piddly donation.
 
there is a old saying that goes a long way here, Money talks bull s...
walks.
 
> 2.   Roy Nettleback wrote:
>
> >....I have no doubt about  FGMO killing Varroa. We can kill varroa with many
> >different means.  A fine mist of oil was used years ago to kill the mites. It
> >killed the mites and some bees along with it because the application did not
> >have a standard.  Over the last year we have had beekeepers here in
> >Washington State, using spray bottles and killing all of their bees. A
> >little bit of information is inherently dangerous in the hands of
> >beekeepers.  Carefully applied, means different things to different people.
>
 
This is propaganda put out by the opposition to FGMO, I tried to spray
mineral oil out of a spray bottle it doesn't work. It comes out in a
stream and not a mist, any idiot could see that the bees die within 30
seconds after being hit from it, hey I did.
 
>    My comment:   Relying on testimonials from people who successfully
> tinkered with their colonies is like too readily accepting comments >from
> those who just returned from Las Vegas, Reno, or Atlantic City and reported
> on their winnings.  You normally hear only from those who beat the system
> that last trip.  The legion of people who lost money remain remarkably
> silent when they return home.  (Those large gambling casinos were not built
> because players most often won!)
 
The beekeepers that have used FGMO are exited because they feel they
just contributed in some small way to the fight against these nasty
mites.  I have used FGMO last year for treatment of mites, and I do have
prove that it made a real difference. This was from an outside inspector
that said it would not work before he did his inspection, he did change
his mind in 30 minutes after making that statement. I am not going to
comment  on the prove any further because it takes some explaining and I
believe I need permission from another party to use the documents. If
anyone wants to see the prove I don't think it will be a problem.
 
 
>
>    So also with a beekeeper who has tried a method that failed.  We can
> expect silence from such a person.  Perhaps the technique was applied
> wrong.  Perhaps the beekeeper is too embarrassed to admit to a large loss
> of colonies by being foolish.  Many rationalizations are possible.  And
> what about a technique working in one part of the country but not in
> another --- or in one season but not in another?
>
 
I think there is no such person, because if he followed simple
instructions then he is also a believer of FGMO
 
 
> 3.  Another beekeeper wrote that he was switching to FGMO for all his colonies.
>
>    Our research on Santa Cruz Island indicates that colonies can remain
> viable for more than two years after varroa infestation before collapsing.
> That collapse is sudden.  As I have indicated before, colonies seem to have
> a morale breakdown --- they just give up.  Do you beekeepers really want to
> put all your eggs in one basket and then wait more than two years before
> realizing that the experimental technique failed?
>
 
I would sugest they do as I did, treat with apistan in the spring, then
start treating with mineral oil after the strips are pulled. By the time
fall comes they will see what all FGMO beekeepers have seen, its like
turning the clock back to the early 70S when varroa was'nt around. I do
remmember those good old days when beekeping was fun and honey prices
were lousy.
 
> 4.  Someone else wrote that older beekeepers and researchers were too set
> in their ways and thus would not accept some new technique.
>
>    My comment:   I have found some of the older people actually become
> mellow and more willing to accept new ideas ("older and wiser").  Others
> remain fixed in their opinions until they die.
>
>    I have also seen many young people come out of their education and/or
> training VERY fixed in their belief systems and totally unwilling to
> entertain alternative explanations to the "facts" indoctrinated into them.
>
>    In other words, let's not consider one's age a factor in this >discussion.
 
You can teach an old dog new tricks, and I have seen young dogs that
should have been shot.
 
There are some beekeepers that don't want to change with the times, I
know because I met one I bought all his equipment for a song. Lucky for
me the mite run him out of business.
 
I would like to challenge anyone to prove that FGMO doesn't work, isn't
that the way it is supose to work in the scientific community. Meaning
you try to disprove the statement that FGMO works on mites.
 
Now follow your statement below see what everyone else has seen that
used FGMO, by doing your own research this summer.
>
> ********
>
>    Yours for better science.
>
>                               Adrian (nearly 70 and still fighting mindsets)
>
> Adrian M. Wenner                         (805) 893-2838 (UCSB office)
> Ecol., Evol., & Marine Biology           (805) 893-8062  (UCSB FAX)
> Univ. of Calif., Santa Barbara           (805) 963-8508 (home office & FAX)
> Santa Barbara, CA  93106
>
> ***********************************************************************
> *  "Discovery is to see what everyone else has seen,                  *
> *         but to think what no one else has thought."                 *
> *                                       ---    Albert Szent-Gyorgyi   *
> ***********************************************************************