BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:38:02 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (62 lines)
The use and efficacy of formic is a topic that keeps coming back like a 
bad penny and each time formic is presented as something new due to some 
new wrinkle in application method.  Every time there are new people who 
have no idea of the long and international history of formic in mite 
control.

Formic was extensively and intensively investigated and employed as a 
tracheal and varroa control in Europe long before North Americans found 
a need to fight mites.  All sorts of devices and methods have been 
tried.  The methods used in North America to date have been copied or 
derived almost directly from European methods and devices.

A decade or so ago, Betterbee came up with a strip much like the MAQs in 
concept, if not chemistry.  It ultimately failed due to problems with 
storage and application, if I recall.

In case we have forgotten already, the predecessor of MAQs, Mite Away 
II,  was presented as _the_ solution to varroa problems until suddenly 
it was withdrawn from the market.

Some beekeepers used Mite Away II effectively, or thought they did, but 
many others had variable results and serious losses while using it.

We must remember that some beekeepers are using _nothing_ for varroa 
control and apparently having good survival, due to their local 
circumstances, stock selection, luck, fraud, or lack of accurate 
observation and reporting, so we have to look at the reports from formic 
users with the same skepticism we use when evaluating treatment-free 
reports.

Rob Currie and his crew have done a lot of work with formic and 
presented the results across Canada over the years.  We have watched 
formic use over the years and have employed it ourselves.  One of the 
things that struck me in the early presentations was the reported loss 
of production in hives, even if the mites were controlled.  This problem 
seemed elusive and showed up sometimes, but not always, so seems to be 
weather or operator dependant.  That is why I prefer oxalic or Apivar 
and am cautious about formic.

Personally, I consider formic useful for tracheal control, but am 
doubtful about it for serious varroa control.

The long and the short of it is that in spite of the fact that many 
inventors have promoted formic as a harmless, simple method of control 
-- if only their proprietary device is employed -- the fact remains that 
formic is a caustic, touchy, unpredictable control chemical that can do 
as much harm to the bees and production -- or beekeeper -- as it does to 
the mites.

No amount of promotion or happy talk changes the fact that formic is 
hard on bees and brood, and maybe the upfront cost is only a hint of the 
total cost if potential unpredictable damage to colonies and production 
are considered.

I'd like to see a test of MAQs vs. Apivar over a season or two.  I'm 
betting that Apivar is far more benign.

             ***********************************************
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2