Good morning to all.
Bill Truesdell wrote:
It seems like such a waste to spend time answering to "supposed;
imaginary
arguments against FGMO. However, because these comments are capable of
deterring beekeepers from even trying out the use of FGMO, one feels
that there is a need to clarify each new "guess" proposed on this
thread.
>
> There have been several new methods of varroa control mentioned
> recently, including powdered sugar, smoke, and FGMO.
Answer.
Wrong Mr. Trusdell. FGMO has been in the books since 1994. Not new at
all.
Each has Varroa drop as a feature of its efficacy. Different smokes
appear to both cause Varroa drop as well as Varroa death while the other
methods seem mixed.
Answer.
There is nothing mixed about FGMO. Nothing else is used in addition
to FGMO.
The findings reported are truly due to the effects of FGMO.
> It has been mentioned that the some methods cause the varroa to slip off
> the bee because of the medium used. That may be true, but it seems to me
> to not be the probably mechanism. I would postulate- a scientific term
> for guess- that varroa drop is caused by an inbred survival reaction by
> the varroa. Sort of on the same order of the reaction by bees to smoke.
Answer.
Yes, you are guessing again. I have not yet read of any one who has
conducted research on the reaction of varroa mites to smoke. I
discontinued the use of tobacco smoke at the very beginning of my varroa
studies because I did not wish to introduce variables that might
interfere with the action of FGMO.
After tobacco smoke was stopped, FGMO continued to produce the same
effects. Have you tested your "postulate" on your own hives?
>
> Varroa are not always loosely attached to the bee, but often wedged in
> as well as parasitically attached. I question if they would fall off
> easily because of bad footing.
Answer.
I would like to suggest that you do some reading about the anatomy
of honey bee mites, especially that of their appendages. FGMO treatments
actually produce a delicate film of oil on the bees surface that
actually interferes with the ability of the mites to adhere to the honey
bee body surface. Mites do have to cling to their hosts with their legs
in order to drive their mouth parts into the "flesh" of the bees. And
yes, mites do have specialized parts on their legs that enable them to
adhere to their hosts.
>
> Let's look at the results of sugar dusting. If the dust particle are too
> large, the dusting is ineffective. But, from what has been posted,
> atomized FGMO and various smokes cause varroa drop. All are of small
> particle size. Smoke has nothing to do with varroa feet, but all can get
> into the mite breathing system. Reduce the size of the sugar particles
> and it can too. And the results are the same, varroa drop. The reason
> could be because of a clogged breathing system or some other survival
> mechanism.
Answer.
There is no doubt about the mechanism of action of FGMO. The Burgess
Propane Insect Fogger being used for this purpose (since the inception
of FGMO) does reduce the FGMO particles to 15 microns, a size that does
penetrate the breathing mechanism of honey bee mites, effectively
clogging their respiratory system. Bibliography and other pertinent data
supporting this subject has been posted on Bee-L and beesource.com for
many years
>
> All this is leading to the simple conclusion that particle size and its
> persistence may have as much to do with varroa drop as the material
> used, including, to an extent, smoke. Have an irritant of the right size
> and you get Varroa drop. It would be fairly easy to disprove.
Answer.
Caution Mr. Trusdell. You have been constantly voicing your opinions
about
"theories." Do you know, have, references as to research performed with
smoke as a method to "get varroa dropped?" FGMO mist as produced by the
Burgess Propane Insect Fogger IS NOT SMOKE. It is pure mineral oil
broken down to 15 micron sized particles. Does FGMO "irritate" mites?
Perhaps, but the mechanism of action is physiological. It blocks the
breathing mechanism of the mites resulting in their asphyxia. If it
does irritate the mites causing them to drop off, much better for the
mechanism of action of FGMO. I am afraid that I have not had the need to
equate that parameter. I am satisfied that the mites
die due an effective blocking of their respiratory system as
demonstrated in vitro during my original studies and as posted on Bee-L
and beesource.com
six years ago.
>
> As far as open mesh floors, if Varroa drop is the result of each, then
> the cheapest mechanism is smoke injected through the open mesh floor
> since all the other methods require opening and manipulation of the
> hive. The only thing you would need is a method to uniformly cover the
> interior with the proper amount of smoke.
>
Answer.
Application of FGMO mist does not require manipulation of the hive at
all.
It is applied directly into the hive via the entrance. However, since
varroa
mites are being born daily, technically, one needs "continuous" means of
treatment other than smoke, hence FGMO emulsion soaked cords placed on
top of your brood chamber frames (or for the same reason, the
application of other miticides in use these days that require constant
presence in the hive environment.
> But. I see it as an exercise for a hobby beekeeper and not a commercial
> alternative except as something to be done in conjunction with other
> methods. It would require too many trips to the apiary and labor is not
> cheap.
Answer.
Please let me suggest that you read the work done by researcher Angel
Zola,
reported Espacio Apicola. Mr. Zola is using nothing but FGMO in more
than 5000 hives. I listed this and other references in beesource.com
several months ago.
I believe that they are still there for anyone to read. If not try,
www.Espacio
Apicola.com.ar
The future of Varroa control is still in the bee and the mite. Change
> either and the problem is solved. SMR, hygienic bees, and maybe even
> cell size are the true future of varroa control.
Answer.
Yes, I am inclined to agree with you on this generalization.
But, in the meantime, are you recommending that beekeepers do
nothing while they watch their hives demise. paying high prices for
toxic chemicals that
may not work at all?
Best regards.
Dr. Rodriguez
|
