>Peter is correct. Acids are caustic when caustic is used as an adjective.
>When you use it as a noun, then it refers to hydroxides of light metals.
So I see, on re-examination. My previous familiarity with the word has been
through chemistry. I stand corrected. Thank you.
I find it very interesting however, that people picked up on this minor point
as a convenient distraction for the real issues, and have thus far totally
ignored the very good questions I raised.
Are these questions too tough, or too much to the point?
Additionally, people have taken issue with Bill on picayune and hair-splitting
issues of semantics and expository detail, but not considered his very cogent
points on their own merits.
Apparently no person here has ever tried his product or even examined all
the literature he has on offer, and since he has a lot of material out there,
it is not hard to find something to discount. Could we put as much effort into
trying to see the potential in his products and research?
Frankly, I had been put off by the sheeer volume, organisation, and
presentation of it, but have decided it merits a careful examination and thus
far, I am inclined to give Bill a pass and consider verifying his conclusions
myself at home.
>This discussion is interesting and we are really operating in the forward
>edge of a new process with little actual data from beekeepers who are using
>it. But we do have a few data points from the field and those are that you
>must use the strips carefully or there are problems. So are we in another of
>those "they are harmless when used properly" and "properly" becomes a
>moving target.
I think you are talking about MAQS here, or do you mean formic in general?
MAQS has come out to mixed reviews. It is very different from some established
formic uses that have been extensively examined and refined in Europe and
which Bill cites.
It is on that European experience that Bill has developed his system and it is
very different in that most of the other methods -- including MAQS -- are applied
on top of the hives.
All these top methods are likely to cause brood damage if conditions are not
exactly right. Bill's method does not suffer that hazard due to the position
and controlled nature of the Mitegone treatment -- or so he claims, and that
is the issue in my mind.
>For example the beekeepers in Cal who had to make additional openings for
>ventilation because of harm to the bees.I do not recall seeing that kind of
>admonition when using Formic in its other formulations. So this new method
>does pack a punch and I have a bit of trouble making the leap to its being
>fairly benign.
Again, I think that we are talking about MAQS here. It is a product that replaces
a product, no longer available, from the same manufacturer who advertised
widely that his previous product was being the answer. Remember the cute
and convincing cartoons in the bee mags?
I hope MAQS turns out to be better than Mitewipes and Miteaway II. If used
properly, it could be the answer some are seeking, and it may be the only
formic treatment some believe to be legal in their district. Bill claims otherwise,
BTW.
In the meantime, I have never heard anyone say that Mitegone has damaged
their bees, reduced their crops, injured their personnel, or failed to control their
mites. I have not heard anything one way or the other.
Where are all the satisfied or dissatisfied users? We have people claiming
success or damage with other products. Why does nobody have any
experience to relate with this one?
Mitegone, that is.
***********************************************
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
Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm
|
