I've been following this thread on the use of MO (FG or PG) for treatment
of mites.  Yes, I've read the attached files from Pedro (no thanks, I don't
need another set of copies).  I am a graduate student working on a bee
monitoring project with Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk.  That in itself doesn't give
me any knowledge of the miticide application process.  In fact, since I'm
allergic, I don't have any beekeeping responsibilities other than telling
the beekeepers when my electronic beecounters say things aren't going well
for the colony.  But, even though I don't get to enjoy working the bees, I
do have access to the worlds most comprehensive database of honey bee and
bumble bee flight activity at my fingertips.  I've been able to identify
windy days, proximety of other hives and availability of forage resources
based solely on the flight data.  I've also identified the effects of some
'stupid beekeeper tricks', such as working the colony while standing in
front of the entrance to the colony.  Would you expect bees to drift to a
colony 20 feet away?  Neither did we.
 
I am by training an analytical chemist.  I've analyzed honey for trace
pesticide residues before, this is a very difficult preparation.  I've
worked for short periods (co-op positions as an undergrad) at both Nor-Am
Chemical (some of you more experienced guys might recognize them) and
Smithkline Beecham Animal Health.  The Nor-Am job mostly looked at trace
residue analysis, which helps determine whether a pesticide or miticide
breaks down in the environment in a timely manner.  DDT is an example of a
pesticide that does not break down in a timely manner, hence most civilized
countries have banned its use.  I have learned that one of the biggest
problems with pesticides is improper mixing and application.  This can be
dangerous, not only to the consumer and other non-target organisms, but
also to the farmer or beekeeper involved in the mixing and application
process.
 
At Smithkline my duties were a little different.  We were trying to get FDA
and EPA approval for a protein supplement to be used in sheep and cattle
feeds.  Being new to the process I asked why we needed EPA approval.  It
turns out that whatever the animal ingests is usually digested and
excreted.  The excrement was of interest to EPA (wow, only one meaning is
intended there).  If the protein supplement was not fully broken down by
the sheep's digestive system it would eventually be released into the
environment.  The impact of the protein supplement on the environment
needed to be studied in order to verify that it broke down quickly and
didn't harm or benefit other non-target organisms.  Other studies were done
to fully understand how the protein supplement would benefit the target
organism.  These studies are vital to FDA approval.  A proposed mechanism
was put forth and thoroughly tested to fully characterize the process by
which the protein supplement benefitted the target organism.  Modifications
can be made to the original proposal if they were needed, but the bottom
line is that the exact mode of action or mechanism by which the active
chemical compounds worked to benefit the target organism must be
determined.  It was also necessary to show how, if at all, the active
chemical compounds affected other organisms.
 
Why such thorough studies?  Well, just because a chemical seems benign to
human beings or to the plant or animal we are trying to protect, it does
not mean that it won't adversely affect the environment.  A simple example
that beekeepers should be familiar with would be knapweed.  Bees love to
forage on knapweed.  Its a great way to increase you honey flow.  I have
flight data from last summer showing a very busy knapweed forage period for
our bees.  So far knapweed sounds very beneficial to bees and humans.
Unfortunately, cattle don't like the idea of grazing knapweed.  In fact,
since knapweek is a noxious weed, it chokes out other native grasses (I
don't have the exact mechanism, but I would guess by simply growing faster
and consuming more water).  How easily does knapweed get from one place to
another?  I've found knapweed growing in my driveway this past summer for
the first time.  There is no local source in the neighborhood, but I have
had to drive though knapweed to get to our apiary.  Not only does knapweed
have a long residence time (it remains long after the useful period), but
it is easily transported through the environment, both of these would
signal the death of any potential miticide or pesticide.  To summarize,
what seems to be a simple solution (knapweed as a robust source of nectar
and pollen) to a complex problem (increase honey production) is usually not
the right solution.  Knapweed is the subject of weed control programs here
in Montana that use weed-cutting and chemical application.  It's
interesting that chemical application is required to control something that
is so beneficial to the bees.
 
Before I start on the MO debate, let's get a couple of definitions
straight.  Water is a chemical.  The air we breath consists of chemicals.
Our bodies are made up of chemicals.  Application of a substance used for
mite control is considered a chemical treatment (that includes mineral oil,
I'll get to that in a moment).  Use of scraping or traps or sticky-tape
would be considered a physical treatment.  Letting the bees develop their
own mite resistant strains would be considered a genetic solution.  Mineral
oil consists of a class of organic chemical compounds, whereas _almost_ all
pesticides and miticides consist of a single active chemical compound.
 
Another simple analogy: water is a chemical, too much water, humans die.
Too litte water, humans die.  Proper amounts of water are essential to
sustain human life.  Human life relies on a chemical (water) that can kill
the human if it is present in quantities that are too high or low.
 
In my research with the bee monitoring project we've verified
electronically some things that beekeepers have always known about bees.
When it rains, most honey bees return to their hives before the rain
begins.  That's a pretty simple statement and we have lots of data proving
it is true, but what we still haven't nailed down is the exact mechanism by
which the bees detect the onslaught of a rainstorm.  Are they reacting to a
temperature change?  What about relative humidity, or barometric pressure
or wind speed and direction?  What about a change in solar radiation?
Maybe it's a combination of several of these factors.  The precise process
by which the bees decide to return to the hive and not resume flying until
the rain has passed is still unknown.  We know that an incoming rainshower
affects flight activity (defined as bees entering and exiting the hive),
but not why the bees return the to hive before the storm, or even how they
detect the storm.  These questions require more research before we can
claim to know how rain affects flight activity.
 
Miticides have an established mode of action.  Check your favorite
manufacturer and they might be willing to tell you how their's works.  This
is required for FDA and EPA approval.  EPA can fine people for selling or
using unapproved pesticides.  FDA and EPA approval can help absolve the
manufacturers and resellers of pesticides from lawsuits if a crop-loss or
low honey return occurs.  Lack of proper governmental approval can make
some parties subject to a barrage of very expensive lawsuits.  Is Pedro
liable if somebody still has a mite induced loss of bees after treating
with MO?  For Pedro's sake, I hope not.
 
I've seen some complaints about not having many choices for miticides and
the development of fluvalinate resistant strains of mites.  These
complaints need to be collected here on Bee-L and sent to the companies
interested in improving their products.  I would like for beekeepers to
appreciate the amount of time and money that is involved in the miticide
development cycle.  The Smithkline protein supplement project was a
multi-million dollar world-wide study that was BARELY going to be
profitable for the company IF they got approval for use within a short
period of time.  My guess is that no chemical company in the world will
touch the topic of using MO as a miticide for bees.  MO is easily
available, hence no control over the profit from sales of MO.  It will also
be extremely difficult and costly to determine the exact mode of action of
MO on mites.  The application of MO into the hive could be a mechanism for
profit, but low-cost requirements will demand a simple device that is
probably no more advanced than that currently used for mite treatment.
 
At this point, if you are still reading you might just be interested in the
last part.
 
I would like to propose that some members of Bee-L get organized and try to
get MO approved by FDA and EPA as a miticide without the help from some big
chemical company.  Let's make use of ongoing university research programs
and private beekeepers around the world.  No more crap about MO not being
harmful to human beings, THAT'S JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH.  Knapweed isn't
directly harmful to human beings.  This would require determining the
effects of MO on the environment that the application as a miticide would
release it into.  Here are some examples of what needs to be studied:
 
EXTERNAL FACTORS (outside of the hive):
Will MO be transported outside of the hive?  In what quantities?  How long
will it take to break down?  What effect will it have on plant and animal
species?
For example, what if the presence of MO will cause important pollen and
nectar producing plants to limit pollen and nectar production?            I
think that would be bad.
What if the presence of MO did affect pollen and nectar production but
there was no method of transferring the pollen from the bee to the plant?
    No mode of transfer, probably not a problem.
What if the presence of MO causes deformities in frogs???   Do we blame the
iguanas? (just kidding, about the iguanas, not about the frogs)
 
INTERNAL FACTORS (inside the hive):
How will the presence of MO affect the use of signalling chemicals in the
hive?  Will the queen stop laying?  What about africanized honey bees?  If
signalling in the hive is hampered, will AHB's have less difficulty raiding
hives?
What about queen chirping as an audio signal?  Could the presence of MO
affect this?
I find it difficult to believe that MO would not affect hive dynamics in
any way, both beneficial and detrimental.
Does the presence of MO affect thermoregulation behavior?  What if the MO
made it more difficult for the bees to evaporate water, resulting in higher
hive temperatures?  What is the optimal temperature for mite reproduction?
Would an increased hive temperature have an affect on the mite's
viability???  Maybe that's how MO kills the mites, by causing a core
temperature increase.  Maybe there is a better product that can increase
the temperature in a similar fashion??
Lots of others that I'm sure the beekeepers can think of.
 
PHYSIOLOGY (bee physiology):
What does MO do to bees as single specimens?  Does it kill them, if so then
how?  What is the LD50 of MO on bees?  What are the acute and chronic
effects?  What levels of MO produce acute and chronic effects?  Are these
levels exceeded during treatment?
 
MODE OF ACTION ON MITES:
How does it kill the mite?  How long does it take to kill the mite?  What
happens to the dead mites?
What is the active ingredient in MO?  Is there a single active ingredient,
or does the process rely on the co-existance of several distinct chemical
compounds?  What if one grade of mineral oil doesn't have all of the
required active chemical components, or does, but not in the correct
relative concentrations?
Do mites have strong and weak years?  What causes the strong and weak
years?  What are the dynamics of mite and bee populations???  Do the mites
interact with other species that may be artificially eliminated from
apiaries due to groundskeeping??
 
 
The above represents a sampling of what questions need to be answered.  I'm
sure that many more can be added to the list.  Again, somebody needs to
contact FDA and EPA and find out exactly what they would require to approve
the use of MO as a miticide.  I really believe that well controlled studies
to determine the effect MO has on mites will be more fruitful than the
sporadic results that have been obtained so far.  1.5 years of study barely
scratches the surface of what is required for FDA and EPA approval, but it
might show them that there is something to study.
 
The list that was posted a couple weeks ago is a good start.  Let's be
proactive here.  If MO solves the mite problem, then lets use all of our
technology to prove it.  If MO won't solve the problem, or only masks a
bigger problem, careful study will prevent the unwarranted application of
MO.  Only when all questions have been answered should the use of MO
continue.  Any furthur discussion of what MO can do or how many hives it
has saved is pointless until progess is made on obtaining government
approval for its use and the method of action on the mites is pinpointed.
 
Hand-waving doesn't work, repeating unsupported claims only annoys people.
Name calling only fuels flame wars.  As far as MO is concerned, it would be
wise to either put up or shut up, i.e., if you can prove how it works and
that it will not introduce a greater problem than the mites already have
presented, then it should be used, but if not, then it is no more effective
than a 19th century elixar.
 
Profitting from research is not the intent of university researchers.  I
could easily get a job in industry next year and make over $60K/year.
That's not my goal in life.  I still have some questions that need
answered, and this whole MO thing has me asking more (obviously).  Who's
side am I on?  The bees and the environment.
 
 
By the way, I did a quick literature search using Chem. Abstracts the other
night.  Turns out that mineral oil has been used since the late 1960's for
generic mite treatment.  I would suggest that we give proper credit to the
true 'fathers' of MO treatment, the ones who used it as a carrying agent
for the really potent pesticides and found that MO alone had an effect on
the mites.
 
I agree with Dr. Wenner's comments on this thread.  More careful study is
needed to verify the effectiveness of MO on mites.  For those who are
unfamiliar with bee research, Dr. Wenner is an outstanding example of
someone who has gone against the tide of popular opinion.
 
I'd like to add more, but I got a thesis that's calling my name, and
another field season fast approaching.
 
 
________________________________________________________________
Bruce King                                              [log in to unmask]
Department of Chemistry                    phone: (406) 542-2993
University of Montana                           fax:   (406) 243-4227
Missoula, MT 59812
________________________________________________________________