Re. Use of Formic Acid
 
     I have been following the discussion on formic acid (FA) with interest.
     I suppose the unfamiliarity with the product causes some US beekeepers
     to speculate on the dangers of the product.  Indeed, the fact that ants
     have been named after it and that the product does occur naturally in
     honey, does not make the product benign.  It is potentially hazardous
     to the applicator when used irresponsibly but are there not scores of
     products we use daily that pose equal or even greater health threats?
     One that comes to mind is gasoline which has a high oral and dermal
     toxicity, extremely flammable and whose fumes harbor all kinds of
     hideous dangers.  Do we worry about it when visiting the gasstation?  I
     suppose its 'structured' and familiar usage has allowed us to become
     complacent apart from the fact that if something goes wrong at the gas
     station, we can blame the supplier.
 
     In the beeyard, the use of FA can pose a risk but if used prudently and
     handled in a prescribed 'standardized' method, it can be of minimal
     threat to the operator.  Since the product has been made available in
     Canada for use in bee hives, the suppliers have made FA available in
     65% concentration.  This negated the need for producers themselves to
     dilute the 85% concentration down.  This step signified the removal of
     a major hazard.
 
     Here in British Columbia as well in as other parts of the country,
     trials and experiments have been carried out in improving FA
     application methods.  We have in BC a factsheet available on FA
     applications methods (e.mail available).  Ever since FA became widely
     used in the province, we have not been aware of any beekeeper seriously
     affected by the use of FA.
 
     As someone else already pointed out, FA is not the 'silver bullet' we
     all like to have in controlling mites.  Matter of fact when (climatic)
     conditions are not right, an FA application may turn out utterly
     useless and probably needlessly injurious to the bees.  Our experience
     has clearly shown that FA efficacy remains partially uncertain and very
     dependent on the right conditions.  Also, as a matter of normal
     beekeeping practice, it is important for beekeepers to replace their
     queens annually or at least every other year.  FA applications do cause
     increased queen mortality.  The queens themselves are not necessarily
     knocked off but perhaps the pheremone release and communication with
     workers is sufficiently disrupted to lead to her demise.  Many
     producers apply FA in the late summer/early fall and if a queen is then
     lost later (unknownst to the beekeeper), the colony will be dead by
     next spring.  Colonies with younger, vigorous queens have shown much
     better survival rates.
 
     FA has its drawbacks but I believe it is a valuable and important tool
     in the fight against mites.  Also, FA enables the beekeeping community
     to broaden its arsenal in controlling varroa ,instead of solely relying
     on Apistan which apart from high costs, may lessen its efficacy in the
     future because of mite resistance.
 
     I am afraid the greatest hurdle faced by US beekeepers is the
     bureaucratic maze they have to travel through to get FA approved for
     use in honeybee colonies.   Good Luck!
 
     Paul van Westendorp
     Provincial Apiarist
     British Columbia