Dr. R's latest research

[WineMan]

Anyone had a chance to read his latest research in the bee magazine using Thymol with FGMO?

[Dave W]

Greetings . . .

I didnt thoroughly read the article about FGMO/Thymol. But, did find the information on the following page (p731) to be very interesting. Its the only published study of FGMO, that I have seen (any others?).

Now I know that Coumaphos gives 100% reduction of varroa mites.

FGMO gives a 69.4% reduction.

Maybe thats why thymol has been added to FGMO, to boost its effectiveness.

In her article, Patti Elzen, Ph.D, USDA, Weslaco, indicated that other tests are planned ("a step I will take in an upcoming trial").

Hope we learn more!
Dave W

[This message has been edited by Dave W (edited August 31, 2003).]

[Barry]

Here are the two articles:
http://www.beesource.com/pov/rodriguez/abjsept2003.htm http://www.beesource.com/pov/usda/abjsep2003.htm

Regards

[WineMan]

Thanks for posting it Barry.

Think I have read it 6 times now.

[Axtmann]

Hi Dave
<<Now I know that Coumaphos gives 100% reduction of varroa mites. >>
What you should know, coumaphos kills mites only outside the cells. It doesn’t penetrate wax. For treatments with coumaphos you should wait till the colonies have no brood, it’s a fall/winter treatment. Only in a brood free colony coumaphos can come close to 100%.

<<FGMO gives a 69.4% reduction.>>

If that would be true you should never find a mite when using the FGMO. As I know it is recommended to treat the bees with FGMO once a week, that mean 52 times during the year.

I give you an example. Start with a mite infection lets say the colony has 2000 Varroa mites.
1.week treatment number 1 kills 70% so there are 600 left.
2.week treatment number 2 kills 70% again the colony has now 120 mites left.
3.week treatment number 3 kills 70% again the colony has now 36 mites left.
4.week treatment number 4 kills 70% the colony has now 11 mites left.
5.week treatment number 5 kills 70% and the colony has only 3 mites left.

Why is it necessary to treat the colonies each week during the year? Even with a strong propagation all mites should be killed at least after 8 to 10 treatments.

If that’s not possible there must be something wrong with your 69.4% reduction.

The Thymol treatment is an old hat go to the following site http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/thymol.htm
I used Thymol from 1992 till 1996 with great success the trouble is the strong smell. I give you my recipe.
Pulverize the Thymol crystals in an electric coffee grinder and give up to 2 grams on top of the frames in each colony (0.25 gram on a frame). The mite fall is up to 3 weeks.
Make a test with a sticky paper and if you find more mites (new hatched) treat a second time with the same amount Thymol.
This is much more efficient than 30 FGMO treatment together. A mixture FGMO and Thymol is absolute not necessary because Thymol alone kills the mites.

[Michael Bush]

>A mixture FGMO and Thymol is absolute not necessary because Thymol alone kills the mites.

But if it takes less thymol it will smell much better. http://www.beesource.com/ubb/smile.gif The FGMO alone also kills the mites and doesn't smell at all.

You figures are probably correct and would explain why Dr. Rodriguez has seen no mites on his bees treated with nothing but FGMO.

[The Honey House]

"I give you an example. Start with a mite infection lets say the colony has 2000 Varroa mites.
1.week treatment number 1 kills 70% so there are 600 left."
==========================================

And then those 600 (assume all females) go off and reproduce (1 male and four females) 600+3000 new mites.

Treating again kills 2520 mites leaving 1080.
(860 females and 220 males)
Those 860 females repoduce to 3440 females and 860 males. (3440+860=4300)

This is based upon an assumption that for every 4 females killed one male is killed also.



[This message has been edited by The Honey House (edited September 04, 2003).]

[fat/beeman]

DR. R
could you please send me a e-mail as where to find thymol as used in your fgmo and thymol.
I am useing the fogger once a week and treating 100 hives now.
Is thyme oil the same frome lorran oils ?
thanks
Don

[Dr. Pedro Rodriguez]

Hello folks.
Yes. I will be glad to provide sources of thymol to those desiring to use it.
Please address your request to my e-mail address.
DronebeeR@netscape.net
God bless you all.
Dr. Rodriguez

[Dr. Pedro Rodriguez]

Don.
My apologies to you. I could not send you an e-mail because I do not have your e-mail address, but I will gladly comply with your request as soon as you provide it to me.
Best regards.
Dr. Rodriguez

[fat/beeman]

Hi Dr. R
my e mail is beekeeper4u2@wmconnect.com

thanks
Don

[Kurt Bower]

I find it interesting that we are willing to take information from Patti Elzen as a valid test when only 9 colonies of bees are involved. From my reading of earlier postings, Dr. R's research was considered questionable and his testing was performed on many more than colonies of bees.
Have the standards changed, or are 3 colonies now enough to be classified as a scientific test?
I think it is fine that someone took some time and ran a mini study, but I dont believe this was up to standards.
I still use FGMO as a stand alone treatment and look forward to continued "scientific" research.
Kurt

[Michael Bush]

Take a look at what passes for scientific research:
http://www.beesource.com/pov/usda/apidologie1978.htm

In this study they take 1200 bees in each cage with three cages for each of four kinds of feed and feed them this for 60 days. Based on how many bees died in each cage, how much feces they produced, how much comb was built and syrup was stored they concluded that sucrose syrup was the best winter feed.

I think three groups of 1200 bees is a very small sample and is statistically irrelevant. I think that 60 days is a very small period of time and is irrelevant, not only because of the length of time but because they didn't overwinter them on this feed. I think if you didn't overwinter them on this feed you can't draw any conclusions at all. But this is often quoted as "proof" that sucrose syrup is the best winter-feed when even the researches said, "Differences between tests in the number of bees per cage were not significant."

I think this study's only real significance is that the differences between sucrose, high fructose corn syrup and honey as feed appears, in a study of this size, to be insignificant. Meaning only that none of these three are significantly BAD for the bees in the short run. Also that "grape sugar" was not as good (in the short run).

It's not that I don't think a project like this is worth doing. Even on this small of a scale it's a start, but to draw any significant conclusions without further research is a mistake.

Research on a small scale can lead you into significant research especially when differences are high. If you start out with three cages of 1200 bees and feed them something and they all die, it's probable (but not definite) that what you fed them was poisonous to bees. It's also possible that they all caught some disease from being stressed and put in these cages in the first place.

If you treat these three cages of bees with something and they all recover and three more cages didn't get the treatment and they did not, it's a very good reason to do a more statistically relevant study. But only because the differences are so large.

Sorry for the ranting.

[clintonbemrose]

I find it interesting that we are willing to take information from Patti Elzen as a valid test when only 9 colonies of bees are involved. From my reading of earlier postings, Dr. R's research was considered questionable and his testing was performed on many more than colonies of bees.
Have the standards changed, or are 3 colonies now enough to be classified as a scientific test?
I think it is fine that someone took some time and ran a mini study, but I dont believe this was up to standards.
I still use FGMO as a stand alone treatment and look forward to continued "scientific" research.
Reply:
2 years ago I started using Dr R's Fgmo cords and foging on 250 hives 1 time every 2 weeks and the old non-chemical way using esental oils on 250 hives. The mite counts on the FGMO hives droped by 60 % and I lost no hives. The esental oils had a much higher mite count during that year and I lost 7 hives to the mites. This last year I started treating all 503 hives with the FGMO foging and the old style cords and only lost 1 hive to moisture but I started foging every week and changing the cords every month. The mite count (Taken weekly sticky board for 24 hours on about 25 diferent hives showed only 2 mites at the most. Seeing is believing. This method seems to make the bees happy and me money. I can't wait to try the new formula next year.
Clint

------------------
Clinton Bemrose
just South of Lansing Michigan

[Kurt Bower]

Clinton:
Thanks for the information. This is the kind of testing that I believe more people need to hear about. I believe that anyone willing to treat 500+ hives must be satisfied with the results.
I am pleased that FGMO is starting to be validated by the mainstream. Lets face it...some of the other methods just arent cutting it.
I too look forward to the improved formula as I have had great success with just FGMO.

Kurt

[cgytm]

<<FGMO gives a 69.4% reduction.>>

I've read the paper and this doesn't impress me at all. This is really not a scientific paper. So I would never refer to it as prooving anything on either side. It doesn't show that FGMO is effective and it doesn't show that it is ot. There is no great value to it.

[Michael Bush]

http://www.beesource.com/pov/usda/abjsep2003.htm
I assume you mean this paper. I see two significant things about it.

1. It was done by the USDA and therefore should be notably independant of Dr. Rodriguez.

2. It concluded that FGMO was much more effective (69.4%) as a treatment than no treatment.

I agree that a serious study with more hives for a longer period of time should be done, but a difference of 69.4% is not a miniscule difference that can easily be explained by variations that were not taken into account. That is a significant number and should warrant some serious consideration for more research.

Also, this is only the fog and not the cords that the Dr. recommends be used in addition.

[cgytm]

"1. It was done by the USDA and therefore should be notably independant of Dr. Rodriguez."

It was NOT done by USDA. I was done by an individual (Bob Brachman). We don't know more of Brachman that he is living in New-York...

Brachman was under the "guidance" of PATTI J. ELZEN who works for the USDA. Their relation is not known. We only know that Elzen got a "call" from Brachman!!! This clearly means that the USDA endorsment is not involved and USDA is not responsible for the quality of the project.

The paper was prepared by Elzen but only relates the personnal experiment of someone else. It is a very limited and general report. This can be considered as anecdotal only. It is more like a report on the guy who saw the guy who saw the bear...

"2. It concluded that FGMO was much more effective (69.4%) as a treatment than no treatment."

We don't know enough of the experiment conditions and it especially clear that the pooulations involved do not permit to give a universal value to what the "results" appear to be. There is also no way to predict that this experiment can be reproduced giving the same results. Just an example. Brachman utilized russsian bees, That simple factor restricts the extension of the results to that type of bees. Russian bees are not like the "average" bees and have specific characteristics one of them being more "resistant" to varroas...

69.4% is NOT a significant number that can be universally applied as the level of efficiency of a FGMO treatment over no treatment. That figure is only anecdotal and by anecdotal we mean that it is valid only for that specific experiment, period. We have to be very carefull on this. Those "results" are not more significant that we already practically know: FGMO seems to work and work better than not doing anything.... The need to have extensive and controlled experiments of the FGMO treatment is still 100% needed.


------------------
Normand Choiniere
Mont-Tremblant region, Quebec, Canada.
http://consultus.qc.ca/valmiel

[cgytm]

"This is based upon an assumption that for every 4 females killed one male is killed also. "

You have just made the demonstration that FGMO do not reduce to zero the varroas population but just limit their rate of reproduction! But they still get more and more numerous!! And at some point they will gain over the bees!!

What's wrong with this? If this FGMO treatment is effective it would be necessary to have an efficiency much more better than 70%. 70% is not enough to get the results that Dr Rodriguez is claiming. Dr Rodriguez say 0% varroas... Niet, nada, nothing, rien!

FGMO would surely help but would not be enough. Is this the reality?

------------------
Normand Choiniere
Mont-Tremblant region, Quebec, Canada.
http://consultus.qc.ca/valmiel

[abeille]

"This is based upon an assumption that for every 4 females killed one male is killed also. "

The problem I see with this assumption is that males probably don't get killed by FGMO. The reason is because male varroa live ONLY in the cells. When a previously mated female varroa enters a brood cell before capping, there is no male varroa in it. 60 to 70 hours after capping, she will lay her first egg, wich will produce a male varroa. Then she will lay 4-5 females eggs at 30 hours intervals. When the male gets sexually mature, the first laid female will moult to adulthood some 20 hours later. The male can mate with that female by then. When the second female becomes adult, the male will mate with her, and so on until the last female moults to adulthood, or the bee emerges from the cell. Males don't survive inside the cell.

FGMO doesn't kill mites in capped brood, therefore males doesn't die by it.

Hugo

[Michael Bush]

>It was NOT done by USDA. I was done by an individual (Bob Brachman). We don't know more of Brachman that he is living in New-York...

Sorry, but I'm still not clear that the USDA was NOT involved. The by-line says by PATTI J. ELZEN, Ph.D, USDA-ARS, Weslaco, TX. The disclaimer at the end says: Disclaimer: Mention of a proprietary product does not constitute endorsement by the USDA. Both of these would SEEM to indicate that there was at least SOME involvement by the USDA. Perhaps you are right and there is not, but these seem to indicate some level of involvment.

>The paper was prepared by Elzen but only relates the personnal experiment of someone else. It is a very limited and general report. This can be considered as anecdotal only. It is more like a report on the guy who saw the guy who saw the bear...

I agree to be a trully useful scientific paper it would require much more detail on the methods not to mention a larger test group.

>We don't know enough of the experiment conditions and it especially clear that the pooulations involved do not permit to give a universal value to what the "results" appear to be.

I agree.

>There is also no way to predict that this experiment can be reproduced giving the same results.

I agree.

>Just an example. Brachman utilized russsian bees, That simple factor restricts the extension of the results to that type of bees. Russian bees are not like the "average" bees and have specific characteristics one of them being more "resistant" to varroas...

I agree.

>69.4% is NOT a significant number that can be universally applied as the level of efficiency of a FGMO treatment over no treatment. That figure is only anecdotal and by anecdotal we mean that it is valid only for that specific experiment, period.

I agree we cannot universally apply this number as "the level of efficiency of FGMO treatment", but it is a large enough number to be very significant. Whatever the other variables in this experiment that we don't know about are, we don't know of many conditions that would have been accidently introduced, that would affect the varroa mite population by that amount.

>We have to be very carefull on this. Those "results" are not more significant that we already practically know: FGMO seems to work and work better than not doing anything....

"We" may know from practical experience that FGMO seems to work. Many people are still denying that it works at all. Part of what I see as significant is that an article in a widely distributed bee journal has given some credence to the use of FGMO. I believe this is very significant.

>The need to have extensive and controlled experiments of the FGMO treatment is still 100% needed.

I totally agree. Hopefully this article will generate more interest in doing just that.

[clintonbemrose]

Argue all you want but FGMO foging and the old cords works for me and my 503 hives withiut using other chemicals in the hive. TRY IT YOU MAY LIKE IT!
Clint

------------------
Clinton Bemrose
just South of Lansing Michigan

[Dr. Pedro Rodriguez]

Hello folks.
Sorry that I had missed this thread on the varroa reproduction cycle.
The essence of FGMO use is that we do not have to worry about male mites. The purpose of FGMO and for that matter, any mite medication, is to eliminate the phoretic females before they return to the cells to complete their cycle. Those who follow the FGMO protocol are reporting success in mite control, hence, FGMO is doing the purpose for what it is employed.
I saw my first varroa mite, female, in 1983. That is 20 years ago. It took me a very long time before I understood varroa's reproroductive cycle and a lot of careful detailed work before I was able to identify male mites. The reasons for this is that they are much fewer, (important factor;thank God for our blessings), their life span is very short and because they have a high mortality rate. This is fortunate for varroa control measures because we are able to control them during their phoretic phase. Like Hugo says, before they go back to the brood cells to lay their eggs.
I hope that other contributing members of the forum do not think that I am being academic. This contribution is done in light of the thought that the forum may be visited by beginners who may not be up to "snuff" about varroas's biology.
Best regards.
Dr. Rodriguez

[Dr. Pedro Rodriguez]

Hello folks.
Caution.
When using medication within the hive (and elsewhere for that mattter) one should be concerned with spilling the medication into the hive, especially within open cells.
One of the advantages of using emulsion soaked cords is that maedication is locked withing the cords and released when the bees chew on the cords hence reducing potential for hive contamination.
Although I am still working on cost-effectiveness and labor reduction methods, fogging and emulsion soaked cords application, at present, seem to be the most efficient in both respects.
Best regards.
Dr. Rodriguez