Dear Allen,
 
        Please excuse my late reply; I've been ex-communicated from Bee-
Line for a couple of weeks and am onmly just signing on again. I've
inserted some comments into your text below.
 
In message <[log in to unmask]>, Vince Coppola
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Can you make a response to this post I found on bee-l?
>
>Allen Dick wrote:
>>
>> > The *misuse* increase the velocity of the process.
>>
>> Thanks for the support, and the explanation.
>>
>> I still think though that it has not been adequately *proven* that misuse
>> accelerated the development of resistance.  Repetition of a theory by many
>> people and publications does not make it any more proven, only more
>> popular.  And any student of history is well aware of the bizarre things
>> people have believed and continue to believe en masse and worldwide.
>>
>> *Perhaps* misuse did accelerate resistance -- but has this actually been
>> proven?  Or is it just a guess?  (and a convenient guess that lets the
>> regulators, researchers and chemical companies off the hook, but blames
>> the beekeepers for the inevitable?  Granted, unapproved uses did occur,
>> but is there *any* real; proof that they were involved in the resistance
>> process, or were they just "first at the scene of the crime"?  Or "in the
>> neighbourhood at the time"?
 
It would be difficult to give absolute proof that varroa resistance to
pyrethroids (not just to tau-fluvalinate) originated through misuse;
however, I've been involved in this study for some years now, since the
rumours of poorer efficacy of "Apistan" began in southern Italy and
Sicily and can tell you that the resistance we see today throughout the
major part of Italy originated in the south, around 1991. Apistan was
not sold or used in the south of Italy but there was widespread use of
home-made "Apistan" - ie wooden strips or cloth soaked in indeterminate
quantities of Mavrik. This, as you know, is a common practice in many
countries but something - be it climate, race of bee, type of mite but
most of all chance - something was favourable for a mutation to occur in
the varroa mite in southern italy so that it could tolerate higher doses
of tau-fluvalinate/pyrethroid than normal susceptible mites. With
greater and greater selection pressure put on it (continuous exposure by
treating the hives 12 months of the year and at very variable dose
rates) a resistant strain of varroa emerged and has been moved around
Italy by migratory beekeeping. It has since diffused to some
neighbouring countries also.
 
This is very well documented but as to proof, no there is no proof. If
you look at the facts 'though and compare the situation to what is also
well documented for resistance evolution in many, many other species of
mite, it is pretty conclusive evidence that this is how it happened.
 
It's nobody's fault it happened. This is a natural phenomenon, of
natural selection. Wherever a strong selection pressure is applied for
long enough in the right conditions, mutation/evolution occurs. That's
life.
 
In my own opinion, resistance would have occurred anyway, at some point,
even if Mavrik [or Klartan as it is sold in some countries] had not been
invented. The difference is in the speed of evolution. I think we would
would had another 10 to 15 years lead time of continuous use of Apistan
alone in every bee hive before resistance became an issue.
 
Apistan is a damn good treatment but it's not the only remedy for varroa
and use of alternative products/methods with a completely different mode
of action should be practised where at all possible, to reduce the
liklihood of resistance emergence.
 
>>
>> I've heard it said that it was known from the start by researchers that
>> fluvalinate would have a probable maximum useful life as a varroa control
>> of around ten years before resistance could be expected to appear if it
>> were employed widely.
See my comments above.
 
> According to that line of thought, that known fact
>> was one reason why Apistan was marketed at such amazingly high prices
>> compared to actual material cost.
Most beekeepers do not agree that the price of Apistan is amazingly
high. Granted you can make a Mavrik strip very cheaply but if you want a
reliable product that has been thoroughly tested and registered for the
specific use of varroa control in beehives - ie is legal, it costs more
than a Mavrik strip.
 
>  The convenience and reliability
>> features of the product justified the high cost to enough buyers to get a
>> quick payback -- and hopefully a profit -- for the manufacturer during
>> the projected short product life, but it was known from the start that it
>> also would unavoidably encourage alternate home-made formulations to be
>> used.  It was a trade-off: the best possible under the circumstances.
>>
>> If the marketer had confidence in the longevity of the product and the
>> ultimate long term profit stream and there was a real, rather than stated,
>>  threat of loss of product effectiveness from alternate fluvalinate use, a
>> pricing more competitive with the raw chemical used could have removed
>> the incentive to make home treatments.
>>
>> Whether this is just a convenient interpretation of the facts or actual
>> history is pretty well impossible to prove, and I guess -- as in most
>> things -- people will choose their preferred explanation amongst the
>> equally plausible ones according to personal taste.  Personally, I assume
>> that chemical companies and their marketing people behave rationally, and
>> this explanation fits.
>>
I can't comment as to what the marketing arm proposed as I was not
involved on the commercial side but the product never has been expected
to have a short life as you suggest. It was developed with long-term use
and sales envisaged.
 
You have to remember that Zoecon as it used to be, was a speciality
company developing specific niche products and they developed the
product Apistan.
 
Sandoz produced agrochemicals, dyes, seed dressings and pharmaceuticals.
Zoecon was constantly in competition with Sandoz as one produced a bee
product and the other the agro product, both with the same active
ingredient - and beekeepers knew and exploited that.
 
What I'm saying is I don't think your assumptions about the development
and marketing of Apistan are correct as Zoecon had very different aims
to Sandoz.
 
>> Moreover, it suggests that 1.) either the chemical company could not
>> achieve a price sufficiently low to effectively eliminate the incentive to
>> make alternate home formulations,  or 2.) that they knew such formulations
>> were not a real threat and that their commercial product would be dead in
>> a bit more than ten years regardless of what anyone did.  (The only
>> other move on the board would have been to provide an alternate chemical
>> treatment and schedule for alternating applications, perhaps even making
>> and distributing completely different strips in alternating years -- and
>> that was a tall order).
>>
>> If it were not a difficult enough problem to come up with a product that
>> worked, the marketer and the beekeepers were hamstrung by a system
>> that makes licencing a product risky and very costly in the name of
>> consumer and environmental protection.  Moreover, the civil legal system
>> in some countries strongly discourages participation in anything but very
>> safe or very profitable products, so marketing economical alternate
>> treatments, although technically quite feasible was not attractive.
>>
Bees are very sensitive creatures. Most chemicals, natural or synthetic
kill honeybees or else produce unacceptable hive residues before killing
the varroa mite. That is another reason why there are so few hive
treatments worldwide.
 
 
>> Anyhow, back to the issue here:  it is very interesting that resistance is
>> appearing simultaneously and independantly at widely separated locales
>> after about ten years of use -- if I've gotten this right.   I guess we
>> have to ask:  is this phenomenon originating only in beehives where
>> alternate fluvalinate formulations were used?  If so, *when* were they
>> used?  Were these hives ones that were among the very first to use
>> fluvalinate?  Is cause and effect actually proven here _or only inferred_?
>>
Difficult to answer. I doubt there 100% proof. What we found in Europe
is that from the shape of the LD50 curves, the resistant strain most
probably had just one point of origin; southern italy. Where we've found
resistance in the rest of Italy in points of Switzerland, France and
Austria the shape of the curve fits exactly the original.
 
Once it has evolved and is stable resitant strains of mite spread as
fast as other varroa to other hives, by swarming and migratory
beekeeping especially. If a colony has resistant mites, the effect of
Apistan will be less than optimal - probably not zero but lower than
normal.
 
In the early nineties when we were looking at field efficay vs
resistance the control levels within the same apiary could be stagering.
In one hive there could be 98% control, in the next 10% in the next 76%,
in the next 25%. The difference was therefore as marked between apiaries
and regions.
 
How did resistance originate in the US? Who knows? It may indeed be as
you suggest that it is solely from Apistan use. But I doubt it. What is
clear is that continuous overexposure to pyrethroid will eventually
render that chemical class useless as a control agent for that target
species. You will get resistance.
 
Apistan should be used only as is stated on the label. Do not leave it
in the colony for 12 months. Over winetr is bad enough but sometimes
unavoidable. At least there's little mite reproduction going on during
this period so the chances of mutation are lower than when it starts
warming up. {It's still not recommended}.
 
 
>> I lack the detailed information to make a conclusion.  Maybe the facts
>> have been independantly researched and are known.  Maybe a scientific
>> study of the ocurrance has been made, reviewed,  and published. If so,
>> then I'd like to know about it.  If not, I presume it is like many news
>> stories: inadequately researched., sensational, lacking depth, and
>> serving an agenda.
>>
No there's lots of data, at least outside the USA.
 
>> I think that it is far from properly established that the resistance is
>> due to unapproved use, or 'abuse' as some like to term it.  But maybe I am
>> just short on facts.  If so, please fill me in.
>>
I'd like to know too.
 
>> Allen> The *misuse* increase the velocity of the process.
>
>Thanks for the support, and the explanation.
>
>I still think though that it has not been adequately *proven* that misuse
>accelerated the development of resistance.  Repetition of a theory by many
>people and publications does not make it any more proven, only more
>popular.  And any student of history is well aware of the bizarre things
>people have believed and continue to believe en masse and worldwide.
>
>*Perhaps* misuse did accelerate resistance -- but has this actually been
>proven?  Or is it just a guess?  (and a convenient guess that lets the
>regulators, researchers and chemical companies off the hook, but blames
>the beekeepers for the inevitable?  Granted, unapproved uses did occur,
>but is there *any* real; proof that they were involved in the resistance
>process, or were they just "first at the scene of the crime"?  Or "in the
>neighbourhood at the time"?
>
>I've heard it said that it was known from the start by researchers that
>fluvalinate would have a probable maximum useful life as a varroa control
>of around ten years before resistance could be expected to appear if it
>were employed widely.  According to that line of thought, that known fact
>was one reason why Apistan was marketed at such amazingly high prices
>compared to actual material cost.  The convenience and reliability
>features of the product justified the high cost to enough buyers to get a
>quick payback -- and hopefully a profit -- for the manufacturer during
>the projected short product life, but it was known from the start that it
>also would unavoidably encourage alternate home-made formulations to be
>used.  It was a trade-off: the best possible under the circumstances.
>
>If the marketer had confidence in the longevity of the product and the
>ultimate long term profit stream and there was a real, rather than stated,
> threat of loss of product effectiveness from alternate fluvalinate use, a
>pricing more competitive with the raw chemical used could have removed
>the incentive to make home treatments.
>
>Whether this is just a convenient interpretation of the facts or actual
>history is pretty well impossible to prove, and I guess -- as in most
>things -- people will choose their preferred explanation amongst the
>equally plausible ones according to personal taste.  Personally, I assume
>that chemical companies and their marketing people behave rationally, and
>this explanation fits.
>
>Moreover, it suggests that 1.) either the chemical company could not
>achieve a price sufficiently low to effectively eliminate the incentive to
>make alternate home formulations,  or 2.) that they knew such formulations
>were not a real threat and that their commercial product would be dead in
>a bit more than ten years regardless of what anyone did.  (The only
>other move on the board would have been to provide an alternate chemical
>treatment and schedule for alternating applications, perhaps even making
>and distributing completely different strips in alternating years -- and
>that was a tall order).
>
>If it were not a difficult enough problem to come up with a product that
>worked, the marketer and the beekeepers were hamstrung by a system
>that makes licencing a product risky and very costly in the name of
>consumer and environmental protection.  Moreover, the civil legal system
>in some countries strongly discourages participation in anything but very
>safe or very profitable products, so marketing economical alternate
>treatments, although technically quite feasible was not attractive.
>
>Anyhow, back to the issue here:  it is very interesting that resistance is
>appearing simultaneously and independantly at widely separated locales
>after about ten years of use -- if I've gotten this right.   I guess we
>have to ask:  is this phenomenon originating only in beehives where
>alternate fluvalinate formulations were used?  If so, *when* were they
>used?  Were these hives ones that were among the very first to use
>fluvalinate?  Is cause and effect actually proven here _or only inferred_?
>
>I lack the detailed information to make a conclusion.  Maybe the facts
>have been independantly researched and are known.  Maybe a scientific
>study of the ocurrance has been made, reviewed,  and published. If so,
>then I'd like to know about it.  If not, I presume it is like many news
>stories: inadequately researched., sensational, lacking depth, and
>serving an agenda.
>
>I think that it is far from properly established that the resistance is
>due to unapproved use, or 'abuse' as some like to term it.  But maybe I am
>just short on facts.  If so, please fill me in.
>
>Allen
>
>
 
--
Dr Max Watkins