allen dick wrote:
> Maybe some day, I'll try FGMO, but so far, I have not seen a need to do so.
> In the meantime, I'll listen closely to any reports that include
> observations that are more quantitative than, "I got a crop and my bees
> look
> good".
The primary reason I have been wary of FGMO is I did read all there was
about it when it first came on the scene and did try it according to the
directions. The data presented was excellent and presented a valid
approach to Varroa control. It did not work. That was affirmed in a
scientific study of the method.
Then the application method was changed. A major test was made by
southern US beekeepers. It did not work. I got several personal emails
on the problems encountered.
Several years ago, a notable University Professor beekeeper who publishs
regularly in Bee Culture tried the next iteration, the fogger, and gave
it up since it did not work. The latest studies confirm his findings.
I have seen much written about how it kills mites, but the current
recommendation is to use a screened bottom. You do get mite drop so the
screened bottom helps in Varroa control. But what is the reason for a
screened bottom if it kills the mite? It should work just fine with a
solid bottom. I have also seen that mites do survive and are not killed.
This fits the evidence of all the trials I have seen, including the
latest studies where the mite load was the same as if not treated by
anything. (There are many different controls which use mite drop and
screened bottoms. All are labor intensive and not viable commercially.)
Add to this all the anecdotal evidence from beekeepers who tried it for
a time and either gave it, or beekeeping, up. I know of no one in my
beekeeping world who now uses it. If it does what it is suppose to do,
common sense says it would be all over the beekeeping world, but all I
know who tried it gave it up.
As far as being negative, I am more than happy if I am proven wrong.
That has happened in the past and I am willing to learn. Dennis M has
moved me well into the small cell camp because of his disciplined
testing and willingness to show where there are problems. His report are
exceptional in their detail.
Another reason I agree with him is my experience with 5.0 foundation
which was very good but not perfect. I like to experiment, especially
since I did not want to publish anything in our State newsletter of new
techniques other than from published studies- I was the editor- which I
had not tried myself and could speak of my findings. Which is why I
tested FGMO.
When the preponderance of evidence is negative, I find it difficult to
be other than negative. I could not, in good conscience, recommend FGMO.
There are cheaper and better methods of mite drop with screened bottoms
plus the use of Thymol for Varroa control.
Plus, do we not owe it to new members of the list to state our view and
allow our views to be challenged so the new member can arrive at some
idea of the truth? Or at least understand a method may not be the Holy
Grail of beekeeping. That, to me, is one of the best features of this
list, compared to others.
A search of the archives shows that you share that view and challenge
ideas presented here often and with vigor. I appreciate that, and it is
expressed well in your final sentence.
Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
