BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bill Truesdell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 1 Feb 2007 16:01:38 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (48 lines)
Dick Marron wrote:
>  
> On Semantics:
>
> Most of us that try to protect our hives without the harder pesticides refer
> to Fluvalinate, Cumophos and Amitraz as "chemicals". Terramyacin as well.
> You knew that Bill.
>
>   
I have no issue with those who do not use things like cumophos, since I 
do not and will not. My guess that most of the current problems stem 
from that one chemical with prolonged use and not changing foundation.

Unfortunately, the problem is not just semantics but the use of 
inflammatory words to separate one practice from another. A pesticide 
kills pests. When I go into my mostly organic seed sellers catalog the 
pesticide section is called "plant protection and pest control", but the 
items are chemicals that kill pests. It is obvious why the word 
pesticides is not used even though that is exactly what they are. I have 
noted here before that many organic pesticides are "harder" pesticides 
than some "chemical" pesticides.

FGMO is not something found in honey, but the harsh chemicals, oxalic 
and formic acid, are. So which is "natural" or organic? The substance 
not found in the hive or the ones that are?

My first issue here is the use of one "mild" pesticide in a hive and 
calling that "organic" or "chemical free" when it is not, especially if 
it does change the "chemical composition" of the wax and honey. At least 
I can label my honey "fat free".

The second is that small cell is implied to be the reason for success 
while FGMO is applied to control mites. It is a given that FGMO with 
screened bottoms is a way to control mites, depending on the location 
and the number of applications. It knocks them down. It does not kill 
them. There are many other treatments that do the same thing including 
wintergreen oil and tobacco or sumac smoke. It cannot be said here that 
cell size is the reason for the control of mites. It is the pesticide, 
in this case, FGMO.

Actually, the problem here is not semantics, but truth.

Bill Truesdell (who is fully organic from head to toe, except for salts 
and the like which are inorganic, but that is just semantics.)
Bath, Maine

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---

ATOM RSS1 RSS2