>>>... It is unfortunate that this information has not been widely
advertised here on BEE-L or on sci.agriculture.beekeeping.<<<

> It is hoped that Bee-L readers will visit beesource.com for recent
information on FGMO research.

http://www.beesource.com/pov/rodriguez/fgmo2001report.htm is the direct URL
to the study in question.

Thank you for bringing this study to our attention. I doubt that many of us
were aware that it had been done and posted to the web. It seems appropriate
that this topic should come up again here for discussion, since Dr.
Rodriguez first mentioned his use of FGMO at the ABF after generating
considerable suspense back in 1997 here on BEE-L.  (see
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9701C&L=bee-l&P=R2090 ).

Later on, the idea of using a fogger for mineral oil was first suggested
here on this very list (see
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9701E&L=bee-l&P=R1381)
after initial work was done, and after it became apparent that a faster,
more simple application method was needed if FGMO would ever be a mite
control method of choice in commercial bee outfits.

Many have called for a study to test FGMO, and I trust that even the
sceptics will now read the study and consider adding FGMO fog to the list of
effective controls, after evaluating FGMO for suitability in each geographic
region and for each manner of operating.  As well, for many, the report will
need some study to determine if it answers all the questions.  I know I have
some.

Although FGMO may now be proven, FGMO may or may not suit everyone; I recall
that oil fog was tried and used in California in the very early days of
TMites.  For some reason, the practice did not catch on as far as I can
tell. (Andy did not seem to have any comment about it when asked in '97), so
we will see if it catches on now that there is a study on the subject and
some successful users testifying to its efficacy.

I spent a few hours this morning examining the report at beesource -- and
also reading through the BEE-L archives (accessible directly from
http://www.internode.net/honeybee/BEE-L/) using 'fog' with the substring box
checked, and 'FGMO'.   Fascinating stuff.  Here is a sample:

http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9701E&L=bee-l&P=R1018
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9707A&L=bee-l&P=R225

---  My initial comments ---

In looking over the report at
http://www.beesource.com/pov/rodriguez/fgmo2001report.htm, I notice that the
study actually uses oil fog AND treated cords. To quote, "The treatment
consisted in applying food grade mineral oil vaporized (15 micron size
particles) with a Burgess Propane Bug Killer and cotton cords coated with
emulsified food grade mineral oil mixed with bees wax and honey:

The experiment uses no controls. (Quote: "Since it is well known that
untreated colonies die during the test period or soon thereafter,")  As we
are increasingly finding out nowadays, the assumption that all hives die
without treatment is not universally true. Some hives maintain low mite
loads indefinitely.

Controls would definitely add to the credibility of the test, particularly
since "The analysis reveals that all hives were infected with the destructor
species, predominant in Europe, except hive No. 20 that was infected by the
jacobsoni species".  This last statement seems peculiar to me, and I await
some discussion on this.  How can one hive be infested with varroa j and
maintain significant levels while all others are varroa d?  We all know bees
drift.  We also know that one mite is much more virulent than the other.

Although I have heard claims here that FGMO fog kills Tracheal mites, there
is no mention of tracheal mites in the report.

It is not entirely clear how many treatments were made, and on what dates,
although I suppose I can deduce that about eight foggings and cordings were
done from "The research project took place on 13 March to 16 July 2001 ",
"The treatment consisted in applying food grade mineral oil vaporized (15
micron size particles) with a Burgess Propane Bug Killer and cotton cords
coated with emulsified food grade mineral oil mixed with bees wax and
honey.", and "Two pieces of the emulsion soaked cords were placed on top of
the frames, and a stream of vapor (about two seconds per hive) was blown
through the hive entrance every 15 days during the duration of the
experiment."

A two second burst is used each time.  How much oil is applied in that
burst?

I did not see any comments on the effect on wax?  Does FGMO build up over
time to change the character of beeswax in the hive?

The hive numbering seems peculiar. Were there other hives in the yard?  Were
there hives that were removed from the test?

At first, looking at http://www.beesource.com/pov/rodriguez/table4.htm I see
more than 100 mites per 100 cells in hive 2?  As high as 1500?  Or is this
the mite drop?  I conclude this is a drop count.  The high counts in hive #2
throughout puzzles me as did half percentages in some of the 100 cell
counts.

I thank Dr. Pedro for doing all this work and presenting it so well.   All
in all it is very interesting reading and I will have to spend some more
time on it.

Hope to hear more comments and maybe some clarifications.

allen

PS: As it happens, I had no trouble finding the article at beesource, since
the FGMO article happens to be currently headlined on the front page
http://www.beesource.com/, making it easy to find.  I imagine, however that
it will move off the front page sometime soon and for that reason we ask
contributors to give *exact* URLs that point directly to articles where
possible, so that readers can go direct to the page in question and not poke
around looking for the information.