>
> >...it is not as simple as concentration. There is additional chemistry
> >and a physical barrier involved. The formic chemically reacts in the
> inert
> >gel to reach an equilibrium between the acid and the formate ester.
>
> >Can you be more specific about how that works?
I thought that was pretty specific! What do you feel that I was not
specific enough about?
> >Do you know for sure what you were testing?
>
Pretty sure!
>
> > Then the critical wrapper, which adds greatly to the cost, slows the
> > diffusion of the formic vapors out of the strip.
>
> >That is also true of the Dri-loc 50 pads as well, except for the cost
> part.
> There a number of ways of adjusting release rate.
>
I cannot speak of the Dri-locs, as have not tried. The published literature
from Canadian studies suggest that it takes repeated application of mite
wipes for effective varroa control in a colony with brood. You would know
better than I. The claimed advantage of MAQS is that it only takes a single
application, and the research that I've seen, and the limited research that
I've done support that claim.
There is also research supporting the efficacy of Amrine's flash treatment
as well as Chapleau's. Bill Ruszicka's MiteGone pads have what appear to
be legitimate documentation of efficacy. My point, a good formic treatment,
whether by strong flash, or sustained release, can give effective varroa
kill.
Multiple returns to the hive for mite wipes require so much labor that they
are often not effectively used.
>
> >Speaking of cost, do you know what the cost will be?
>
According to the developer, about US $4-5.
>
> >, I will say that the strips are extremely safe to handle!
> >That is a good aspect, I suppose, and may be important to some. On the
> other hand, an awful lot of formic is dispensed every year in Canada
> without reports of accidents. Personally, I think gasoline is more
> dangerous,
> yet untrained personnel and children are permitted to handle gasoline.
>
Against the law for children to dispense gasoline in the US. But I agree
with your point that lye, bleach, hydrochloric acid, etc are commonly sold
in grocery stores for untrained handling.
The problem is that any employer who asks an employee to handle an
unregistered pesticide is breaking the law. If such pesticide causes an
injury (and formic acid injuries have indeed been reported by beekeepers),
then that employer could be in deep trouble.
>
> >I strongly suggest that those on the list refrain from judging the MAQS
> >until they have actually tried them!
>
>Where did that come from?
From statements such as the following:
>I am sure they will work, but not have any advantage, other than, possibly
handling, over treatments you can make yourself with simple materials.
>
>
> > In the interest of full disclosure, which are you? Independent, or on
> retainer?
>
In the interest of full disclosure, completely independent. I'm merely
reporting on published data, soon-to-be-published independent data, and from
my own clearly limited experimental results.
>
> >We hope this product turns out to work well for you since it seems you
> have
> no other legal choice.
We don't even have the legal choice of oxalic dribble! And only have the
legal choice of sugar dusting or Crisco for tracheal mite due to my hounding
the DPR until I got them to write a formal letter allowing such use! I
fully support giving beekeepers the option of using liquid formic acid if
they wish (and understand that many will choose not to, given the potential
for injury).
Randy Oliver
***********************************************
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
|
