MAQS - Formic Pro

[WoodenBeam]

I see that the next generation of MAQS is landing on the UK shores - intrigued why you’re now unable to use with supers in place whereas this wasn’t the case with MAQS. Anyone able to enlighten me?
Although I never used MAQS with supers in place prior to extraction there’s always a super in place during treatment prior to autumn feed / top’n’tailing.
Instructions are available on tut internet but from the great US of A - these seem to contradict the UK initial guidance not only in advice about supers but also methods of application………….
I’m pretty sure I’ll continue either with MAQS or running colonies as brood & 1/2 with Formic Pro come Autumn but will search an answer in the meantime.

 

[Finman]

I see that the next generation of MAQS is landing on the UK shores - intrigued why you’re now unable to use with supers in place whereas this wasn’t the case with MAQS. Anyone able to enlighten me?
Although I never used MAQS with supers in place prior to extraction there’s always a super in place

MAQS is formic acid. The product name has been used in Canada 25 years.
The habit has been, that treatment is not used with supers. If the hive is big, the more you must give formic acid into the hive.

What have changed that " next generation" is named.

It has been many ways to release acid into the hive. Next generation after 20 years common usage in Europe?

But I bet, that no one advice to treat your supers with acid. It gives extra taste to you honey.

 

[Finman]

From Canadian texts I read that Formic Pro is
"a Third generation formic acid treatment". The advertise year was 2019.
To some it is only "next generation treatment.
I do not know, if there are some new methods behind generations.

Perhaps that generations is only a marketing term.

 

[Sanntos]

Yes, every generation of MAQS is Formic acid. So when I buy 20 liter 80% formic acid, it's worth a fortune, but costs nothing.

 

[PLUTO]

whats everyones thoughts on this

5bf082dce553c3e9de6f0d3b0748eb1e971c3350.pdf (thorne.co.uk)

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

just MAQS by another name I suppose

 

[Erichalfbee]

I found a link saying it was just renamed.

 

[ericbeaumont]

just MAQS by another name I suppose

Looks like it.

Although the temps of application are described in Euro Centigrade (rather than the US/Canada Fahrenheit) the instructions don't differentiate between box sizes, which was an issue with MAQS labelling when first introduced. Formic is a blunt instrument and what suits a Dadant or Langstroth is likely to OD a tiddly National.

If Dani is right, and it's MAQS renamed, it shows that NOD haven't learned.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Looks like it.

Although the temps of application are described in Euro Centigrade (rather than the US/Canada Fahrenheit) the instructions don't differentiate between box sizes, which was an issue with MAQS labelling when first introduced. Formic is a blunt instrument and what suits a Dadant or Langstroth is likely to OD a tiddly National.

If Dani is right, and it's MAQS renamed, it shows that NOD haven't learned.

It looks like they can't afford to relicence it which is the only way they could add hive size based dosage instructions

 

[Erichalfbee]

Strange that you can’t now use it with supers on?

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Strange that you can’t now use it with supers on?

I noticed on the NZ site that the link to those instructions had been removed and that the instructions had no mention of using with supers on.

 

[Sanntos]

All treatment methods have to be fine-tuned by the beekeeper

 

[Sanntos]

And instructions from the manufacturer can be useful, but in this case, when they charge 6 pounds for something you can get for far less than a pound, I would rather read what other beekeepers are saying.

 

[ericbeaumont]

they can't afford to relicence it which is the only way they could add hive size based dosage instructions

Strange that you can’t now use it with supers on?

They can't edit box size instructions but can change the supers rule?

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

They can't edit box size instructions but can change the supers rule?

I didn't think the original instructions said you could use with supers? but regardless, not telling people they can leave supers on is a bit different to changing the dosage instructions (even if specifying hive volume makes better sense)

 

[ericbeaumont]

specifying hive volume makes better sense

Far more useful.

 

[Finman]

It is same formic acid gas, what you reliese into the hive. It has been over 25 years same way.

What idea is to keep supers and honey in the hive when you treat. The odor of formic acid id strong. There is a research about the honey aroma, how it changes if you use thymol or formic with supers.

Out of Canadas' beekeepers are 80%. Tjey cannot spoil their yields. They have used at least 25 years formic acid.

A German method to deliver formic acid gass into the hive.

 

[Brian Bush]

My feeling was it is B****y expensive

 

[ChrisS]

As I understand it, Formic Pro is just an improved version of MAQS with a longer shelf life and some changes to the permeable wrapper. I know some people are anti-MAQSers but I've used it for years with good results. It's a simple one-off treatment and works with sealed brood (unlike vaporised OA). I use it in July-August before the colony starts rearing winter bees. Yes it costs money but I'm prepared to pay.

I'm against using synthetic chemical treatments like amitraz in my hives, for much the same reasons that I don't use chemicals in my organic garden. Discuss...

 

[ericbeaumont]

Strange that you can’t now use it with supers on?

What idea is to keep supers and honey in the hive when you treat. The odor of formic acid id strong. There is a research about the honey aroma, how it changes

Too **** right!

Good time to repeat my MAQS experience, years ago when it first came on the market, when the instructions stated clearly that supers could be left on the hive during treatment.

Took honey off an apiary anyway, but left half a box on one colony and put in the MAQS. Week later, decided to extract it after all, so put the frames in alone and started spinning. Smell of lemon heavy in the air, honey tasted of lemon sherbet. Tested with litmus paper: 100 times more acidic than the 3.9ph average of honey.

Contacted the supplier and offered to send a sample; supplier took the jar to a meeting of experienced beekeepers, who agreed it was odd but not fermenting.

Next stop was BCWagric, the UK agent for the Canadian NOD manufacturer; BCW agreed that testing would be appropriate to determine tainting, and suggested I contact NOD.

Initial reply from NOD asserted quite strongly that I had fermented honey and that MAQS was not involved. The email included a document nearly a foot long describing fermentation in infinite detail, and I felt that the intent was to get rid of me.

I persisted with the claim that MAQS tainted honey and pretty soon MAQS CEO David VanderDussen emailed to refute my claim (which was born of direct experience and after following the product instructions). Reckon that David hoped that by pointing out that I was the only person in the world to have had this problem, I might back down and go away.

Well, I wasn't going to do that, but an email or two later (I'd suggested that NOD might be keen to have the sample tested) David asked what sort of company do you think we are? I could sense his exasperation and irritation all the way across the Atlantic.

Conclusion I came to was that NOD either couldn't afford to or were unwilling to test because the result might indicate that investment in the product, the licence and marketing might not be quite valid; there the matter lay, as neither of us was going to budge.

The following year an eminent beekeeper followed the same instructions and had nine supers of honey tainted, all unsaleable. Last month I tested my sample and found that the ph had dropped to more or less normal; tasted it just now and it's not bad, sharp, as if the juice of a lemon had been stirred into a pound of honey.