SARE Interim Report – December 2009
1. FOOD GRADE MINERAL OIL/THYMOL FOG APPLICATON AS A
NATURAL ALTERNATIVE TO TREATING HONEY BEE MITES
FNE08-641
Heather Kyser
PO Box 8
Greenhurst, New York 14742
716.488.4445
kyserrolls@windstream.net
2. Project Goals
Honey bee colonies are diminishing because of developing resistance of Varroa mites to
chemicals and pesticides, thus stressing the importance and need of a natural and
sustainable mite control method. Being conducted by Bee-mus Honey, this SARE project
is investigating the use of food grade mineral oil (FGMO) and thymol (a natural plant
extract) in the form of a fog as a natural and economic alternative to pesticide use for the
control of Varroa mites within honey bee colonies. The primary goal of this project is to
test the effectiveness and sustainability of FGMO/thymol fog as a mite control method
and prove that it is a safe, extremely cost-effective, and an environmentally friendly
acaricide for honey bees.
3. Updated Information
At the beginning of the SARE research project in the spring of 2008, Bee-mus Honey
started with fifteen research hives with Russian bees – ten experimental and five used as
control. All fifteen bee hives are within the same yard with approximately ten meters
distance between the control and research hives (to eliminate potential drifting of the
fogging materials from the experimental hives to the control hives). Hive losses occurred
due to inclement weather during the 2008-2009 winter (more details below in # 7).
Replacement colonies of Russian bees were purchased in the spring of 2009 to maintain
the fifteen hives needed for the research.
4. Cooperators
I have remained without a cooperator for my research since the beginning of the grant. In
spite of this disappointment, I have received endless valuable assistance and mentoring
from a longtime beekeeper and pioneer in the area of fogging with food grade mineral oil
and thymol. I am in contact via e-mail with this gentleman often, and he provides me
with insight and suggestions that I gratefully appreciate. It is Dr. Rodriguez’s exact
formula and research protocal that I am using for this SARE grant.
5. Methods of the Project
When applied following an exact formula developed by Dr. Pedro Rodriguez,
FGMO/thymol fog is not toxic or harmful to honey bees, honey bee larvae or eggs, or
queens. In addition, there is no possibility of mite resistance to FGMO/thymol making it
even more attractive to beekeepers. In an effort to increase the sustainability of
beekeeping and profitability of beekeepers, this research project on the effects of
FGMO/thymol treatment for mites on honey bees will be conducted on the Bee-mus
Honey bee colonies. Dr. Rodriguez has generously provided me his exact formula and
fogging instructions for FGMO and thymol. See appendix #1 for complete details of
formula and protocol.
Since 1993, Dr. Pedro Rodriguez, a retired veterinarian and beekeeper of 70 years,
pioneered and developed the use of FGMO/thymol as a cost-effective, safe, and
environmentally friendly Varroa and tracheal mite treatment. Dr. Rodriguez has
implemented a very precise formula and strict proven protocol for the application of
FGMO/thymol treatment (appendix #1), and has researched honey bee colonies in Spain
and Virginia with complete confidence (and scientific data to prove) that, if applied
correctly, this form of treatment is extremely efficient at controlling Varroa and tracheal
mite populations within honey bee colonies. Furthermore, Dr. Rodriguez has
scientifically tested (through gas chromatography laboratory analysis) that there is no
detection of either thymol or food grade mineral oil in the honey or bees wax,
demonstrating the safety of FGMO/thymol treatment as an effective acaricide. Dr.
Rodriguez’s research with FGMO/thymol as a natural mite treatment has been published
in the American Bee Journal and other reputable bee journals.
Some skeptics of the FGMO/thymol fog treatment argue that it is not an effective means
of controlling the Varroa mite population within a hive. Improper treatment procedures
and failure to closely replicate Dr. Rodriguez’s work are the primary reasons for disbelief
(and consequent failure) on the use of FGMO/thymol treatment. Therefore, to obtain
success in the use of the FGMO/thymol fog treatment, it is imperative that the correct
formula and protocol be used.
Dr. Rodriguez’s research is unique in that it is cost effective for the treatment of both
Varroa and tracheal mites, making it more attractive to all beekeepers, especially since
this form of treatment can be applied to the colonies of honey bees all year around (as
long as the bees are flying). Dr. Rodriguez’s work with FGMO and thymol has never
been replicated and needs to be done to confirm to the beekeeping industry that it is an
efficient acaricide. Bee-mus Honey anticipates to replicate the use of FGMO/thymol fog
treatment, prove its efficacy, and make it accessible to any beekeeper searching for a
safe, environmentally and bee friendly, and extremely cost-effective means of mite
control for both the hobbyist and the commercial beekeepers alike. There are commercial
thymol preparations in the market but the concentration of thymol is extremely high thus
their use is restricted, allowing honey bee mite populations to reach catastrophic levels
before they can be treated with such commercial formulae. The formula to be used in this
project has been proven to be safe and effective during the entire year as long as the bees
are flying.
In the spring of 2008, Bee-mus Honey began a three-year research project on the efficacy
and specific application techniques of FGMO/thymol fog with the use of a Burgess
Propane Fogger (model #1443) to determine its value as a preventative control for
tracheal and Varroa mites. Research is being conducted on fifteen bee hives - ten
randomly selected experimental hives and the remaining five untreated controls. Fifteen
packages of Russian bees (three pounds each) were purchased and installed on April 22,
2008. The bees were placed on new foundation to minimize variability and to rule out
possible residues in old combs. All packages were fed granulated sugar and pollen patties
to supplement feeding.
All hives were installed with screened bottom boards to allow for mites to drop away
from the hives (and not re-enter) when fog treatment is not occurring. All hives had
sticky boards installed (beneath the screened bottom board) immediately before fog
treatment and left in place for 24 hours.
Beginning May 3rd 2008, FGMO/thymol was fogged weekly into the entrance of the
research hives. Fogging typically occurred during the afternoon late afternoon hours. The
fog provides the bees with a film of FGMO/thymol creating a slick surface to which the
mites cannot cling. No fogging was performed on the control hives. Varroa mite drops
(for all 15 hives) were collected, counted and recorded 24 hours after each fogging
treatment to distinguish mite drop due to treatment from natural mite drops. Research was
completed for the season on October 5th, 2008.
FGMO/thymol fogging resumed again on May 7th, 2009, and continued through October
4th, 2009. All experimental and control hives were fed granulated sugar and pollen patties
during October 2009. Research will continue in 2010 to obtain sufficient data through
replication (three years). Because of the anticipation of some 2009/2010 winter colony
losses, Russian package bees will be purchased in the early spring 2010 to maintain a
total of fifteen hives. Exact methods and formula for FGMO/thymol as used in 2008 and
2009 will be used in 2010. No changes or alterations to the research will be made at this
time.
6. Results
As this interim report is being written, it is thought to be too early in the research project
to quantify the success of the use of FGMO/thymol as a Varroa mite control on honey
bees. Quantitative research results will be analyzed after the 2010 season once the project
is complete. But, as of December 2009, qualitative results from the first two years of
research appear to be extremely supportive of the effectiveness of fogging with
FGMO/thymol for the control of Varroa mites.
Losses incurred during the 2008-2009 winter were quite high, but are most likely
attributed to a very cold, snowy, and long winter. Seven hives survived the 2008-2009
winter, resulting in eight lost hives – four control hives and four experimental hives. All
eight dead-out hives were still quite heavy with reserved honey, but it is my assumption
that the cold simply prevented the bees from reaching their food. These hives were
replaced with Russian packages on April 28, 2009, and installed that evening (in a wet
and cold rain). Three of these packages had a lot of dead bees, one had a queen without
attendants to care for her, and one had a dead queen. As the spring progressed, all
packages seemed to be strong.
Two experimental hives swarmed in May 2009, and one control and five experimental
hives swarmed in late summer of 2009. Unfortunately, the hives that swarmed did not
produce surplus honey. One experimental hive died prior to completion of the 2009
research year (the experimental hive remained queenless after a late season swarm, and
failed at requeening itself). One other experimental hive swarmed quite late, and I was
unable to detect the presence (or absence) of a queen. The outcome of this hive will be
determined in early spring 2010.
On a more positive note, an on-farm demonstration of the FGMO/thymol fogging
technique was performed in June of 2009. Notices were mailed to all members of the
Chautauqua County Beekeepers Association, and I am convinced that those who did
come were excited about the research and fogging demonstration. Three other people
came on separate occasions and also participated in a fogging demonstration. It is
encouraging to see others so optimistic and open to a more safe, bee-friendly mite control
method.
24-hour mite counts seemed to fluctuate quite a bit in both the control and experimental
hives, reaching their highest values in August and September of 2009. Many of the
experimental hives had very low mite counts all season (below 10 mites over a 24-hour
period). Others had a much higher mite count (comparable to the control hives), but these
experimental hives had much larger and stronger bee population, possibly explaining the
larger number in mites. There is also drifting of bees occurring between the control and
experimental hives, possibly resulting in the control hives contaminating the
experimental hives with mites.
Overall, the nine experimental hives entered the winter weighing more than the control
hives, suggesting that the fogging successfully controlled the mite infestation within the
experimental hives making them stronger and healthier. On the contrary, the five control
hives did not weigh as much, indicating less honey stored for the winter months.
Furthermore, the experimental hives produced a much larger amount of fall honey (per
hive) than the control hives, further supporting the hypothesis that fogging will produce
stronger honey-producing hives. Findings indicate a positive direction of this research
project for the next year.
7. Site Conditions Affecting the Results
The eight new package bees did not arrive until the end of April 2009, thereby limiting
the amount of time the bees had throughout the early nectar and pollen flows to build up
their winter storage of food. Furthermore, the eight new package honey bees were under
stress from being shipped, slowing the start of a productive season. Our area (western
New York) experienced a freeze and snow fall in May, resulting in lack of Locust flow,
thereby further delaying the nectar and pollen collected by the honey bees from this
important source tree.
The 2009 summer weather was quite detrimental on the local vegetation, and thereby,
also the bees. We had an extremely wet and cool summer, resulting in much nectar being
diluted, and limited foraging time for the bees. Additionally, the cold temperatures and
excessive rain caused unneeded stress on the bee colonies, possibly attributing to the high
number of hives that swarmed in the late summer. The high rate of swarming might also
be attributed to the Russian stock of bees received for the research purposes. Russian
bees are noted for their swarming tendencies, but many beekeepers also complained of
“bad queens” this year as well. These environmental factors (excessive cold and rain)
negatively affected the amount of honey extracted in the fall, and possibly the overall
health of the colonies leading up to winter. In spite of these uncontrollable environmental
factors that may have negatively affected the research results, fourteen hives are entering
into the winter, with the majority of the control hives appearing to be strong and healthy.
In complete contrast to our cool and wet summer, our late autumn was unusually warm
and dry – many hives still had bees flying strongly in early December on a regular basis.
This is of concern since there is no natural nectar or pollen available for the bees,
resulting in them consuming their reserved honey within the hive that must feed them
throughout the cold winter and early spring. Because of their late fall consumption of
their reserved honey, the hives could possibly run out of food before the spring 2010
pollen and nectar flow. Only time will tell.
I still have great expectations for the project during the 2010 season, and strongly believe
that the third year of this project will help fine tune my recommendations to other
beekeepers who are using (or plan to use) the FGMO/thymol fog as a mite control. The
precise, organized method of treatment used throughout this three-year grant is critical to
the success of the FGMO/thymol fog for the control of mites.
8. Economic Findings
The research project has not had a major impact on our farm income this year, but we did
have a greater surplus honey crop than last year. The honey bees spent much of their
summer inside the hive due to poor environmental factors, resulting in not as much
surplus honey as anticipated.
Nonetheless, during the 2009 season, the experimental hives produced 438 pounds of
surplus honey (up from 312 pounds in 2008) of surplus honey and the control hives 52
pounds (compared to 60 pounds last year). Comparing results per hive, the hives treated
with FGMO/thymol produced much more honey than the control hives. The table on the
next page represents the total pounds of honey produced per hive during both the 2008
and 2009 season.
HONEY PRODUCTION IN 2008 and 2009
hive number
lbs. honey in 2008
lbs. honey in 2009
Control #1
24
30
Control #2
0
0
Control #3 (swarmed 9/5/09)
36
22
Control #4
0
0
Control #5
0
0
Experimental #1
0
0
Experimental #2 (swarmed 5/21/09)
32
125
Experimental #3 (swarmed 9/6/09)
41
0
Experimental #4
0
20
Experimental #5 (swarmed 5/27/09 and
114
0
9/12/09)
Experimental #6 (swarmed 9/26/09)
0
22
Experimental #7
0
56
Experimental #8 (swarmed 9/12/09)
125
57
Experimental #9 (swarmed 9/5/09)
0
34
Experimental #10
0
124
Not only did the experimental hives produce more honey, but also appear much stronger
and healthier heading into the winter. Internal hive inspections demonstrate a larger
quantity of bees and stored honey in the experimental hives. Two of the control hives had
very few bees and stored honey, and are unlikely to survive the winter. External hive
inspection (in September and October) showed a much larger number of bees at the hive
entrance in the experimental hives compared to the control hives.
Fogging is not a labor-intensive procedure, and is therefore a valuable time-saver and
straightforward means of controlling mites. In addition, the colony does not need to be
broken apart for treatment to occur. The FGMO/thymol is simply fogged into the hive
entrance while the outer cover is lifted – there is very little labor involved and it takes
only seconds per hive, in addition to being economically cost-effective.
9. New Ideas
At this time, there will be no change in the research being performed. The exact methods
used for the 2008 and 2009 seasons will be used for the 2010 season. It is still too early to
quantify the success of the research.
Once this project is complete (2010), the next step will be to inform other beekeepers
about the success of fogging as an effective, economic, and simple mite control method
for honey bees. I am highly optimistic about the success of using FGMO/thymol fog as a
control of Varroa mites on the honey bees. It will be exciting to perform the research
during 2010!
Heather Kyser
December 23, 2009
APPENDIX #1
FGMO/THYMOL FORMULA AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR BURGESS FOGGER
Ingredients needed for fogger:
1000 cc mineral oil at 0.86 density (860 grams)
50 grams natural thymol
Instructions for diluting thymol:
Remove 100 cc FGMO from the 1000 cc intended for mixture. Place 100 cc FGMO in a
mason jar. Add 50 grams thymol and secure cap tightly. Place a metal container filled
with water (i.e. cooking ware) on a heat source. Place glass jar with the 100 cc FGMO
and thymol in the water of the heating vessel. Swish/swirl jar as the water heats up until
thymol dissolves completely. Solution will become slightly amber in color (normal
change). The solution is now ready to add to the rest of the FGMO intended for use in the
fogger. This will result in a 5.49% FGMO/thymol solution.
Instructions for fogging:
Fill the fogger container. Set fogger on a level, steady surface. Turn gas valve to the left
1/4 turn. Listen for a slight hissing sound from the fogger. Light the fogger from
underneath (using a butane stove lighter). Wait. You should notice a drop or two of oil
dripping from the spout of the fogger. Next, you should notice a small emission of oil
mist similar to that of a lit cigarette. Next, the fogger will emit a larger puff of oil mist.
The fogger is now ready for fogging. Holding the fogger parallel to the ground, point the
nozzle directly at the hive entrance. DO NOT AIM THE FOGGER DOWNWARD! Pull
the trigger of the fogger 3-4 times, while counting 1001, 1002, 1003, and 1004,
depending on the population size of the hives. Never add any other ingredient to the
fogger when following this procedure. Do not use foggers that may have been used for
spraying pesticides previously.
References
Rodriguez, P.P. 2004. Food Grade Mineral Oil (FGMO) for Mite Control: 11th
Anniversary. American Bee Journal. December 2004.
Rodriguez, P.P. 2004. FGMO-Thymol Application Improved For Varroa Mite Control.
American Bee Journal. March 2004.
Rodriguez, P.P. 2003. Analysis of Honey for Traces of Thymol. Laboratorios
Apinevada, Granada Spain. December 2003.
Rodriguez, P.P. and Harris, C.E. 2003. Food Grade Mineral Oil -Thymol Widen
Alternatives for Honey Bee Mite Control. American Bee Journal. September 2003.
Rodriguez, P.P. 2003. Food Grade Mineral Oil (FGMO) as an Alternative Treatment for
Honey Bee Mites. American Bee Journal. January 2003.
Rodriguez, P.P. 2002. Analysis of Honey from Hive Having 3 Years Use of FGMO.
Laboratorios Apinevada, Granada Spain. July 2002.
Rodriguez, P.P., Campbell, M. and Campbell, L. 1999. Mineral Oil as an Alternative
Treatment for Honey Bee Mites, Part 2 – Methods of Application and Test Results.
December 1999. PDF Format.
Rodriguez, P.P. 1999. Mineral Oil as an Alternative Treatment for Honey Bee Mites Methods of Application and Test Results. May 1999. PDF Format.
Rodriguez, P.P. 1997. Dr. Pedro Rodriguez's 2nd release regarding his mineral oil
research entitled "Mineral Oil for bee mites Treatment: Phase II". August 26, 1997. PDF
Format.
Rodriguez, P.P. 1997. Dr. Pedro Rodriguez's release regarding his mineral oil research
entitled "Bee Mites And Mineral Oil". Posted to BEE-L. July 12, 1997. PDF Format.