What were your legitimate questions?
Mike I did see this one...
>>>My next question then is... How can you be certain that FGMO/Thymol is NOT the "Silver Bullet"? I personally think it should be critically tested and either confirmed or eliminated from the list of effective treatments against "CCD"
And your point?
My comments on the cyclone and charlie harpers comments are real and valid, and should be given as much wieght as this piece on FGMO. Sorry if you dissagree.
I personally feel that its backwards to research FGMO based on someone claiming to have the answer as to the solution based on not seeing it in hives fogged with FGMO. I added the examples to show that there are others making the same claim. I see no reason to waste research dollars and effort when finding the cause is better than seeking a solution and then trying to find what your not seeing to begin with.
Hows that. Straight forward and to the point. Now I hope you can respect my and other's opinions without your comments of "jerks".
Mike, one more thing.
Can you please list and post this "list of effective treatments against CCD."
I am really interested in this particular comment of yours.
It is well established at this point that thymol is an effective weapon against varroa. The commercially available products that utilize it have been tested and found effective.
Whether the concentrations in the FGMO/Thymol fogging mixture are as effective as the commercial products is open for debate. My bottom line is that I am convinced it helps. But like any treatment, colonies have to be monitored.
Mike G...... your points are good ones. Not knowing much of anything about "CCD" clouds the issue. Until it is nailed down anything is purely conjecture. I am convinced that FGMO/Thymol fogged is very helpful for many things, grooming, tracheal mites, varroa, molds, fungus, etc.
It is cheap, fast, easy and IMO effective at some level.
I fog with fgmo and thymol for v-mites and t-mites. I have healthy hives. That is enough for me. No scientific data, no control hives, just a happy beek.
If I don't have ccd because it isn't in this area, or the fgmo/thymol, or the water savings of going in the yard, it doesn't really matter to me. I just like healthy hives and no contaminated wax or honey. I will continue to fog.
I actually was upset after the very first post. Its full of presumptions, broad strokes of prejudice, self promotion, fear-mongering, pandering, among others.
Or did you mean to read further than that?..... ;)
Thats ok mike, you can call me a jerk if you want.
Keith now, you should know better. Nobody is suggesting that we chase down every cockamammy(forgive me, I'm not sure if I ever tried to spell this word before) suggestion. Just this one!
I only wish some were as willing to break down the first post as they are everyone elses posts. That opening post is a doozy to say the least.
I am always amazed when people get ripping mad that no one wants to invest time energy and money into their pet theorem.
PS - weirdly, cockamamie is in the spell checker - go figure!
Ok, Lets see....
We have a possible virus that may be responsible for CCD or a result of CCD. But at least that seems where the research is headed.
And Dr. R thinks FGMO treatments are the reason for not having CCD. Although I'm not sure whether his hives have ever been exposed to such viruses, and he never mentions the fact, he is quite sure FGMO is the treatment for CCD, and is campaigning for research.
If you were a researcher, what questions would need to be asked? Esxample-How does the virus spread? Food sources, egg laying or other? What vectors could be effected by FGMO and how would this defend against the virus or limit the effects.
I'm guessing some basic questions would be asked, then models set up to test such ideas.
Other then getting some CCD hives and begin treating with FGMO, what models or concepts should be given consideration.
I asked before last weeks news about a virus, how would FGMO defend against a virus, earlier in this thread. Nobody made any comments.
Through past research, some knowledge on vectors, treatment impacts, and desease characteristics are known. Basic test models are based on such common sense and knowledge. So using this, how can one see FGMO being tested? How would FGMO be effective in "theory" that would giude you in testing if you were the researcher?
It's raining today. Someone humor me...... ;)
What is rain?
>>>What is rain?
Gods tears from laughing so hard after reading some of the ridiculous crap in this thread..... :)
You're right! I've removed "my" ridiculous crap.
I'm better now. :)
>I asked before last weeks news about a virus, how would FGMO defend against a virus, earlier in this thread. Nobody made any comments.
It is commonly know that a virus is a miniscule organism that attacks organic cells of the host it has invaded. So when following the very exacting protocols of the famous dr R, the fgmo is vaporized into a very fine droplet the size of a virus. These tiny droplets of vaporized oil are then bombarded upon the virus making the virus very slippery and unable to adhere to or attack the cells therefore making them inert and of no danger to the host.
Bill do you have an idea whether the oil smoke will kill AFB? I never had it, but just in cast. How much oil must be blown in the hive to make the AFB spores slippery?
Everybody likes a little.................
Nobody likes a wise................ :p :p :D
I like fogging, SO THERE !!!! ;)