>     I suppose the one effect that is clear is that treated colonies do not
 >     die from Varroa attack.
 
Hello All,
 
I wonder if any of you would be so kind as to cite one or more research
papers that shows that one hive has died from so called "VARROA ATTACK"
other then antidotal ones? Like one bee scientists added x, x2, x1000
numbers of varroa to healthy hives and found that x100 was the fatal
numbers. You might also add the science that shows the level of
infestation that treatment with this product should begin. I try to keep
up on all the beekeeping scientific literature but I seemed to have
missed that one.
 
M>Apistan today is as "safe" a hive treatment for bees as you can get and the
 >bonus is that it's good at killing Varroa too!
 
Yes, and according to the Canadian farm papers this company is doing a
good job selling this product in Canada to control the dreaded trachea
mites. I must admit that I have missed the efficacy studies on the use
of this product for this pest but I have no doubt that a company as
large as this has any problems buying any research it needs with a $40
million product development budget or was it $30 million?
 
"Safe treatment", Thats 100% true for a large list of chemicals, and
some natural ones that would cost about five cents a hive to use. In
fact I have never seen a chemical company say less about their
products, they all claim safe if use as directed until a problem
develops and we all find out what "safe" means the next trip out to our
bee yards. Reminds me of my non English speaking neighbors who came
over for a translation of 'spade, when a dog they had been told was
spaded give birth to 14 puppies...
 
For sure this product continues to bee the politically correct one for
US beekeepers to use as it is the only one allowed in the US...which in
itself reeks of a real sweet deal and a real sweet 'honey-moon for this
company. (Translation, a federal licence to steal from a captive
market.)
 
M>Apistan has been repeatedly used and tested world-wide but if Sandoz
M>were to receive feedback from beekeepers that treatment was causing
M>colony damage (as some other preparations do), the product would be
M>re-evaluated and possibly removed from the market.
 
    Little I have read displays better the real arrogance of the
chemical industry then this last paragraph and a free shot at the
competition to boot. We all know they are always the dirty guys.
 
If we beekeepers don't like how this product is working and bad mouth
it they will pull it off the market... What a load of BS... like this
was the first time this company ever heard from beekeeper to report a
antidotal comment of a negative effect or NO effect from use of their
product. What ever happened to the old "guarantee of satisfaction or
your money back"?
 
It would take multiple law suits from beekeepers from every corner of
the world before this company would stop selling this product and it
would be a first when this company concedes that antidotal reports from
end users were worth the effort to answer them, (as you was not done
here), or a reason to pull such a financially successful product out of
a captive market. To do less would admit liability and set a lot of
beekeepers up for a nice refund. The only thing that will replace this
product in the market is a competitive product that beekeepers would
find to be as effective, safe to use, and/or cost less as they have been
hooked on chemical control no thanks to this companies promotion budget
to advertise a product with NO competition in all the beekeeping trade
magazines some which only happen to be the major suppliers of their
product but I would guess that is a small part of that $30, or was it
$20 million development cost.
 
                             ttul Andy-
                             California
 
 
(c) Permission is granted to freely copy this document
in any form, or to print for any use.
 
(w)Opinions are not necessarily facts. Use at own risk.
 
---
 ~ QMPro 1.53 ~ http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/varroa2.htm