What's going on with Hopguard?

[dnichols]

I actually called hopsteiner last year and tried to order some PIKE. As soon as they heard I was a beekeeper they said no go. Hopguard has a patent on the use of hop extract for beekeeping. Very sad. Its a wonder the company survives when 35 out of 50 states prohibit it. Back to my original question. If it is so safe why are states balking at it?

[Ian]

I imagine its the cost associated with registration ,

[the doc]

It has worked well for me in the late fall and early spring season when choices are limited. There is't any brood rearing at that time of the year so you can really knock 'em back then

[the doc]

Also I think that a section 18 exemption has to be requested annually in each state and some of them take longer than others. Check back later - I think most states had it last year

[jmgi]

dnichols, looks to me like you can buy all the hop extract you want if you google it, now I don't know if its the right stuff for treating bees or how much of it you need or if you need to dilute it down to a certain percentage, but its available to anyone. There must be someone here that is smart enough to figure out which extract you need and how to properly use it. It's got to be cheaper than getting it from Mann Lake. John

[Intheswamp]

I posted a question to Jim Tew via his website yesterday asking him what his thoughts were regarding Hopguard and "progressive treatment". At first my message was "pending moderation" but now it doesn't show at all when I log on which makes me wonder if it will be answered or not. If I hear back from him I'll post what I find out.

Ed

[c10250]

For anyone interested, here's the international publication of the patent application:

Please note that this is not an issued patent, just his international application.

http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/e...0)COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING A HONEY BEE PARASITIC MITE INFESTATION&woNum=WO2012170420&prevRecNum=1&nextRe cNum=2&recNum=1&queryString=FP%3A%28WO2012170420%2 9&office=&sortOption=&prevFilter=&maxRec=1


The international search report cited "prior art" of US20080026673A1. That is an interesting US Publication of a patent application for the use of hops in controlling varoa.

[c10250]

Here's an earlier US Patent . . . interesting

http://www.google.co.jp/patents?id=D...page&q&f=false

[Intheswamp]

Well, I never did get a response from Jim Tew. I guess it's not high on the priority list.

Ed

[Kieck]

Also I think that a section 18 exemption has to be requested annually in each state and some of them take longer than others. -the doc

Section 18 registrations are "emergency registrations." They are intended to allow use of a product for a year in cases where no other options are readily available while the product goes through the process of registration. When I've talked to some of the people in the agencies that register pesticides for use, they all seem to find it uncommon and unusual that any product would be sold for more than a year or two in succession under only a Section 18 exemption.

[David LaFerney]

If it is so safe why are states balking at it?

I attended our state associations meeting last weekend, and we were addressed by our state apiarist (inspector - Mike Studer) who engaged the State Apiculturist (John Skinner - Head of Entemology @ UT) in a floor discussion during which someone asked what was up with hopguard - "when will it be approved in TN?" The answer given by Mike Studer was "It never will be, because it doesn't work." Mr. Skinner seemed to concur. His words, not mine - I don't know for sure, but it sounded like it might be somewhat opinion based - but those are the two opinions that matter most in TN.

[jim lyon]

That's an interesting and unfortunate exchange. Hopguard is a tool to control mites and it's a very benign product. It works well in some scenarios and not so well in others. To simply state that "it dosent work", in my humble opinion, does a real disservice to Tennessee beekeepers.

[Kieck]

... but those are the two opinions that matter most in TN. -David LeFerney

Hmmm... I'm not discrediting the two named in the exchange, and I don't know the details of how pesticide registration works in Tennessee. I believe in most states, it works something along these lines:

A company develops a pesticide. They register their pesticide with the EPA. That registration costs, and, as part of the registration, the pesticide is studied for risks associated with using it.

After that, it is registered by the company that makes it in each state where they want to sell it and where it can be legally used. This costs, too, although the amount in some states is lower than what I would have expected without some background knowledge.

I don't know that a product must be shown to be "effective" to be registered. Based on the list of some of the products that are fully registered for use in some crops, I would argue that a number of products that do not really work currently have full registration.

Registration of a product is usually through a regulatory agency separate from a university and not through the apiary inspection office.

[David LaFerney]

Yeah, I don't really know how it works in TN either, and I don't really have an opinion about hopguard - on account of I've never had the opportunity to try it. I'm pretty sure both of these guys official capacity is through the TN Dept of Agriculture.

I would say this though - If something is shown not to work in it's intended purpose I would just as soon not spend my money on it. Not saying that hop guard doesn't work, just that I actually do appreciate the state NOT allowing something to be sold for a specific purpose just because it is safe - distilled water would be safe. I would like for that determination to be made using scientific method.

[jim lyon]

My understanding is that it's usually just a matter of the state filling out the proper paperwork. A request from a beekeeping organization within the state would, most likely, help greatly. However if the state authorities feel its not a worthwhile product it may be a bit more difficult.

[Kieck]

I haven't tried it either. I don't believe that the professionals who handle registering pesticides in the government agencies let personal opinions about how well a product might work affect decisions regarding registration. If a product is not all that effective but carries a great deal of risk with its use, the lack of efficacy might hinder its registration, I suppose.

After all, Varroa are reported to be largely resistant to fluvalinate at this point. That means that fluvalinate is no longer an effective treatment if that resistance is accurate. Yet fluvalinate remains a fully-registered pesticide, still labeled for use in bee hives.

[Kieck]

My understanding is that it's usually just a matter of the state filling out the proper paperwork. -jim lyon

I'm fairly certain it works the other way. The company that intends to sell the product seeks registration with the state. The company has to fill out the paperwork, pay the registration fees with the state, and get it accepted by the state.

[jim lyon]

You may be right. I think, my confusion is that once a state has received a section 18 for a particular product then the onus is on the state to refile for that product each year.

[Kieck]

I believe that's right for Section 18s, Jim. I've been told repeatedly that Section 18s are intended to be temporary. They are for emergency use, in a suddenly-changed situation. Renewing such an exemption year after year after year doesn't seem to be the intent of the designation.

[libhart]

Here in PA the company sought the approval last year. The dept of ag went to the state beek association to ask if the assoc. thought it beneficial that it be approved. I was personally disappointed that the president at the time said no and that the reasons were that we should all just be treatment free and not need anything else other than what we have. I think each state's dept. of ag would have a different level of expected input from its state apiarist or association provided they have them, so the comment from Mr. LaFerney that those two opinions matter most in TN are not surprising to me.