Herb and Andy asked me if I read Dr. Rodgriques' paper.  Following is a
long answer.  I did not previously discuss the FGMO issue for many reasons.
 But since it has come up again I offer the following in the interest of
providing an analytical approach to reading papers about research projects
as well as published scientific papers.
 
Yes Herb and Andy, I did read Dr. Rodriques' two papers on mineral oil.  I
read them when they were first posted to BEE-L and again sometime back on
the Midnitebee site to see if there was any newer information.  What I find
disturbing is the lack of data.  He does say in the second paragraph of the
paper that the project is incomplete but that he thinks the "release of the
present findings is considered appropriate," and that ("...statistical data
has been carefully limited.").  But I still fail to find sufficient data in
the paper to support many of his statements.  On the contrary, numerous
questions are raised by what he says and what he does not say.  For those
beginners on the list who have read Pedro's paper at your site I mention
the following issues and questions to help them analyze what he is or is
not saying, and to demonstrate the analytical process I use when reading
any scientific paper:
 
1.      On Page 2 in the next paragraph following #4:  Pedro says "after
continued treatment of my colonies with Apistan strips, mites continued to
proliferate and that colony health and size were diminishing...."  What is
meant by continued treatment?  Is it the label recommended time period, or
the 51 weeks of the study described later?  The data is missing.  If the
mites continued to proliferate, how did he measure this and what was the
data?  Usually Apistan results in the demise of 99 percent of the mite
population during the recommended treatment period, IF, the treatment was
conducted during ambient temperatures of 50 degrees F. or higher.  What
were the levels of Varroa at the beginning of his treatment?  Colonies,
depending on size, with 1,000 or more mites, have been observed to
collapse, and partially collapse, with Apistan hanging in the hives.  Why?
Because treatment was begun after mites had reached high levels.  Only
young bees are left in the hive after a partial collapse of the colony.  By
collapse I mean absconding behaviors occurred.
 
        The reason I say that treatment must be done at 50 F. or above is because
we watched thousands of commercial colonies die here because they were
treated in October and November while those folks who had treated in August
and September lost few colonies.  The reason is that at 50 and below, the
cluster of bees is too tight and the bees do not move around enough to
carry the chemical throughout the cluster.
 
2.      In the next paragraph, Pedro says the same thing again.  On 1 April 1996
he applied three Apistan strips (3/colony).  "After six weeks (!) of
treatment with Apistan, four colonies had perished and mites continued to
proliferate in all remaining colonies."  At what time did the four colonies
perish, in the first week?  Again, mite levels must have been quite high
(no data), or the Apistan was not effective because the mites had developed
a tolerance to the chemical, or treatment temperatures were too low.  Mite
populations will again build after an Apistan treatment but they will not
proliferate (semantics?) unless other colonies in the vicinity are
absconding and reinfecting the treated colonies.
 
3.      In the next or third paragraph following #4 on page 2:  Pedro says he
waited for two weeks to allow Apistan to wear off.  Did he determine that
two weeks was sufficient based on some studies, or was it just a personal
opinion that two weeks is enough to remove Fluvalinate from the colony
environment?  If it does not disappear from the colony environment, logic
would suggest that there may be even very low levels remaining to confuse
subsequent treatment with other products.
 
4.      In the fourth paragraph following #4, in the last sentence:  Pedro says
"Hence, mineral oil, if effective against mites, could be utilized for the
treatment of bee mites during the entire year contrary to other acaricides
that have seasonal limitations."  Is he saying that if effective, mineral
oil could be used year round?  Or is he saying, it could be used during
different treatment periods throughout the year because it would not be
seasonal or temperature dependent?  Any treatment may be temperature
dependent and therefore seasonal, based on bee clustering behavior.
 
5.      In the next paragraph, top of page 3:  Pedro says "Food grade mineral
oil (FGMO) does not contaminate honey or honey bee products, and is not
toxic to honey bees, provided that the oil is not applied in excessive
quantities."  Has Pedro or others conducted tests which prove these
conclusions?  FGMO is foreign to bee hives and therefore a contaminate.  I
am not aware that scientific data exists that would support Pedro's
statements about FGMO.
 
Pedro's Laboratory work:
 
6.      Under A, #2:  Pedro says that "some mites remained active (lethal doses
or lethal times were not evaluated) for some time."  Why not?  I thought it
was common laboratory practice to collect data on observations, especially
those that had not been documented previously.
 
7.      B, 1:  "Yields varied between ten in a small colony to 112 in a large
colony."  What is a small colony?  What is a large colony?  Did the small
colony exist because it had previously collapsed with high levels of mites?
 If so, one would expect to find only low levels of mites.  The
pretreatment history is important to any subsequent testing procedure and
any claimed results.
 
8.      The same question can be asked in B, #2:  What were the colony sizes?
 
It seems to me that beekeepers and fellow researchers would get much more
useful information from this information if we knew how many combs covered
with bees (or an average) were in the test and control colonies.
 
Field work:
 
9.      B, #3:  Here Pedro used "(up to 2.5 cc) spread on top bars of the
frames."  He doesn't say whether this is a five, ten, or 20 frame hive.
Consequently, it is not clear how much oil is used per comb, five combs, or
ten combs of bees.
 
        Pedro doesn't say when he counted the mites by uncapping brood cells, I
presume at the end of the test.  He says "Yields varied according to degree
of infestation, size of the colonies and length of treatment.  ...Mite
count per hundred brood cells uncapped dropped drastically (54% in some
colonies to four percent in others) as oil treatment continued."   Pedro
doesn't give us the average mite load prior to or subsequent to treatments.
 A post treatment mite level drop variation from 54% to 4% per 100 cells
(without average data) suggests that the FGMO may not be an effective mite
control chemical.  Especially is this true when it is considered that the
treatment had been applied 25 times over 51 weeks!
 
The same issue arises in the second paragraph following #3.
 
Under Pedros' Observations:
 
10.     #1:  Pedro claims that "FGMO can be utilized effectively to control bee
mites with quantities ranging from a mere film applied on waxed paper and
up to 2.5 cc applied on the top bars of the frames."  Really?  This
statement implies that the amount of FGMO that remains on (doesn't drip off
of) 1.5 x 10 inch strips of waxed paper effectively controls mites.  So
what is the proper or effective dose to be used per comb of bees to achieve
a specific level of mite control?
 
11.     #3:  Where is the data that FGMO has not affected the queen's laying
ability?  What tests were performed?
 
12.     #5:  "Of the twenty colonies utilized for treatment with mineral oil:
One absconded; two were small and died due to pilferage (robbing).)."  This
is a 15 percent loss.  What was the previous treatment history and mite
load of the 20 colonies?  If they had been previously treated with Apistan,
a 15 percent loss could be expected under normal circumstances.  He says
the remaining colonies are thriving and building very large populations.
It would be nice to know how many combs of bees are in these colonies.
 
13.     #6:  Pedro says that in the control colonies "queens stopped laying and
the bees died fighting the robbers, from disease and lack of food.  Nosema
was observed in two of the heavily parasitized colonies."  What diseases
killed the colonies?  Why did they die from lack of food?  Nosema is never
observed!  It must be diagnosed by dissecting the bee and looking at a
maceration of the bee's midgut under a microscope.  If he observed
defecation, that is not necessarily an indicator of Nosema.  I have tested
a lot of bees from hives heavily soiled with defecation and I found most
samples didn't show any Nosema, or only two or three thousand spores per
bee.
 
14.     #10:  FGMO was applied every two weeks for 51 weeks.  That is 25
applications!  "The use of mineral oil did not affect egg laying of the
queens nor the health of the developing larvae."  Is this just an opinion,
or is it based on science or some data Pedro collected?
 
15.     Next paragraph:  "While it may seem that oil applications should be
made more frequently (judging by the presence of mites after 51 weeks of
treatment)...."  How many mites were present after the 51 weeks?  One
wouldn't expect to kill all of the mites with any treatment.  If low levels
were left in the colonies (say 100 mites per ten combs of bees, or even 20
combs, or was it three mites per colony?), one might ask whether FGMO was a
sufficiently effective control strategy, and certainly whether 25
applications is cost effective.
 
16.     Pedro's Conclusion:  "mineral oil seems to offer a preferable medium
based on per unit cost, ...."   What data did Pedro use to calculate that
mineral oil is a preferable medium?  And how did he calculate the costs?
The data isn't in the paper.
 
Pedro's paper, Part #2:
 
17.     Paragraph 1:  Pedro makes a:  "suggestion regarding the oil dispenser.
I found that it needs to be modified because the bees soon learn to avoid
it."  Do they avoid the dispenser, or the FGMO?  Why do they avoid it?
 
18.     Pedros' new method of applying mineral oil from a bottle placed in the
hive:  If the bees avoid the dispenser or FGMO as stated above, why would
Pedro think that placing the bottle in the hive would be attractive and
therefore an effective treatment?  How will he provide a measurable and
effective dose to the environment of Varroa, the colony?
 
Based on the way the paper is written and the apparent lack of data, I
cannot conclude with Dr. Rodriques, either that FGMO is effective at
controlling Varroa, or that the control colonies died from Varroa alone.
They may have died from a combination of "disease, lack of food, Nosema,"
poor queens, or other variables that occur in colonies.
 
I look forward to reading Dr. Rodriques' final scientific paper on FGMO.  I
hope it provides evidence that the product will effectively control mites,
and that it will be a cost effective method to do so.
 
It is my opinion from talking with many bee scientists in the last 20 years
that many of them also analyze scientific papers in a similar manner as I
have done.  They want to know the who, what, when, where, and why answers
so they can duplicate their colleague's work under varying weather and
geographic conditions.  They also want to replicate a test several times to
eliminate variables and improve the statistical reliability of the data
they gather.
 
In my opinion, all of the fuss that has been stirred up among beekeepers,
on this list, and in the scientific community, about credibility, and FGMO,
is solidly based upon the lack of data in Dr. Rodriques' paper and perhaps
on many of the issues I raised above.  I hope his final paper will remove
all doubt about FGMO.
 
I appreciate innovative ideas about products, chemical or otherwise, that
may have potential as a miticide.  I appreciate that many products used in
other fields, such as veterinary medicine, may have potential as miticides
for bees.  Let's test them using accepted scientific  principles,
processes, and methods.  Beekeepers can even do this work but they should
use previously accepted methods uniformly, consistently, and collect the
appropriate data accurately (like Allen Dick and others are doing with
Nosema).  If these methods are not used, tests and any results are said to
be anecdotal.
 
I also think that anecdotal accounts of observations have some level of
validity.  I have learned a lot from beekeepers who have made some very
analytical observations of bee colonies.  If one keeps these in mind, they
may add up to a word picture which has an explanation which is different
than the beekeeper originally thought, and they may also lead to a
potential study project which may in turn lead to a research project and
some beneficial results.  An example of this is the work being done, at
Washington State University by Dr. Sheppard, with an extract of mint oil.
The project was suggested by a commercial beekeeper who had tested the
product, kept some records, and thought he was seeing some good results.
Dr. Sheppard is in his second year of work with the product.
 
This is a long reply but I hope it will be helpful to the readers of BEE-L.
 
James C. Bach
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]