# SUMAC



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

I use the staghorn sumac in the smoker along with other fuels. I have never worn any protective gear nor have I used it alone. I use it randomly, as I do all my treatments.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I have used sumac just because it's handy (not for mites) and it worked like any fuel. It calms the bees. If you're smoking them enough to make them mad you're smoking them too much.


----------



## Sharkey (May 27, 2004)

Well..........

I think you are confusing "poison Sumac" with plain old regular Sumac. Entirely different things. Do a google on the two plants and see the difference.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

" If you're smoking them enough to make them mad you're smoking them too much."

But, if your smokeing for mite control, whats too much? 
I really smoked mine up last year and didn't notice any brood, queen, or overwintering problems. In fact this was the first winter I didn't loose bees. I don't think it was because of the smoke though. Its my opinion that you can smoke them Heavy if your intent is mite controll.

I've used a respirator while smokeing with rubarb. I've noticed anything that is still green in the smoker (grass, etc.) will make me quezy. Even if it is dry, but still green. Its likely the chlorophyll. If its green and your producing alot of smoke, I'd wear one. Its no trouble and you don't need a bee suit, that is if your just smokeing through the screened bottom board.

[ June 29, 2006, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: MichaelW ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Smoking" for mite control? How in the world does that work? How much smoke do you have to use, and how often do you have to use it, to really control mite populations?

I suppose if you smoke the bees with enough smoke often enough, you might eventually make them just leave. Once they're gone, your mite problems will be, too!  

As far as having to wear a respirator to apply the stuff, I'd hesitate to use such stuff in any of my hives. If it's so bad that I don't want to breathe a few fumes, I wouldn't want to eat any residue in any honey I might take off the hive. And, if it's so dangerous that I'd be afraid to catch a few whiffs of it, I'd really wonder what it's doing to my bees.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

"...afraid to catch a few whiffs of it"

I'm not talking about a few wiffs, I'm talking about billowing plumes of enveloping smoke!

I don't really think you could "control" mite populations with it, but it should reduce mite numbers. I see it could be benificial in the summer dearth while you are waiting for temperatures to decrease to use thymol products or formic acid.

The theory is, the residues increase grooming.

Sure, it could cause absconding if you did it too often and your bees were already in bad shape.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"I'm not talking about a few wiffs, I'm talking about billowing plumes of enveloping smoke!" -MichaelW

OK, but your bees are still exposed to the same concentrations. If you're enveloped in billowing plumes of smoke and you're worried about it, your bees are enveloped in those same billowing plumes of smoke. Again, if it's so bad that you're concerned for your health, don't you worry about what it's doing to the health of your bees.

Along the same lines, if the residues increase grooming, then the residues must be sticking to everythin (including the bees) that comes into contact with the smoke. Those same residues could be in the wax and/or honey within the hives. Don't you worry about eating it, then?

And, yes, I've read the theories about smoking and grooming and such before. The reports about experiments on this topic that I've read have suggested that smoking for mite control has very little if any real impact on mite populations. I'd appreciate reading any evidence that you might know about that shows that heavy smoking can actually decrease mite populations.

By the way, I'm not poking fun at wearing protective gear. If you feel more comfortable wearing a respirator when smoking bees, or if wearing one helps you avoid symptoms that you find unpleasant, I think it's a fine idea. Personally, though, I wouldn't want to use a substance in any of my hives that I was so concerned about that I felt I must wear protective gear around that substance.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

I've used vaporized oxalic acid on my bees with no harmfull effect
I've read studies that say it leaves no buildup in wax or honey
but I sure don't want to breath a few whiffs of the stuff









Dave


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

People have been using sumac flower heads for smoking bees for years, long before varroa became a problem because it's a nice soothing smoke. If it is an effective varroa control treatment, I'd be very surprised.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

"Don't you worry about eating it, then?"

No

I've been known to cook meat on a smoker too. Gasp!

After some quick searching I found this good article on Tracheal mites and smoke, and also found lots of citations to articles that deal with various smokes and varroas that suggest some smokes do in fact drop varroa mites. I chose not to post any of the varroa citations as they weren't the specific articles.

type "bees smoke varroa" in
http://scholar.google.com
to get a start on the varroa

here's the tracheal one

Apidologie 35 (2004) 341-349 
DOI: 10.1051/apido:2004026

Natural products smoke and its effect on Acarapis woodi and honey bees 
Frank A. Eischena and Carlos H. Vergarab

http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/apido/pdf/2004/04/M4016.pdf

"The smoke of creosote bush was the most
effective tested, but other plants showed a
modest activity. We conclude from these
experiments that tracheal mite morality was
caused by plant volatiles. However, because
there are possible, but unknown side effects on
honey bees, we do not advocate attempting to
control A. woodi with any of them."


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Sumac Berries - We were amazed at the results [BC, 9/04, p40]. A 5-second exposure to dried sumac seed heads burning in a smoker has a positive effect on mite drops and has a greater effect than mineral oil [ABJ, 11/04, p863]. Gather and dry berries previous fall or dry for approx 1 wk before using. Hard to get started, but once hot, they will smoke. Store berries in a paper bag. [BC, 9/04, p41].

The chemical, 1-2-3 benezenetriol, also known as pyrogallol, is the ingredient in sumac seeds that kills mites. Pyrogallol is a poisonous white crystalline phenol produced by heating gallic acid, which is used in medicine and as a photographic developer. Sumac should only be used (as any other chemical w/ possible detrimental qualities) when honey supers are NOT on the hive [BC, 6/05, p8].


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I have used sumac just because it's handy (not for mites) and it worked like any fuel.

Yea, Wink and a nod,  

And I smoked Pot in the 70's cause I liked the taste.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--People have been using sumac flower heads for smoking bees for years,,,,,
If it is an effective varroa control treatment, I'd be very surprised.

It has already been proven that sumac is a pesticide properties. whats the dosage then per hive? What about the bi-directional effect this poison might have on yourself or the colonies? 

I would figure that your aggressive colonies would be smoked more and given a higher dose than your gentile colonies. This would give the aggressive genetics an unfair advantage over that of the gentile colonies causing greater winter success and drone production in these aggressive colonies, and this would be reflected in the breeding.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--The chemical, 1-2-3 benezenetriol, also known as pyrogallol, is the ingredient in sumac seeds that kills mites.

This is the problem with using sumac as fuel, if Pyrogallol is inhaled, it can cause harm to the respiratory system.


Pyrogallol can be absorbed into the body by inhalation, ingestion or through the skin. It is toxic and an eye, skin and respiratory tract irritant and prolonged skin contact may cause dermatitis. Inhalation can cause coughing, shortness of breath, nausea and faintness. Ingestion can cause vomiting, diarrhoea and unconsciousness. Blood disorders, liver and kidney damage can result. Serious cases can be fatal.

Dosen't sound like a very wise choice for a smoker fuel.

[ June 29, 2006, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>It has already been proven that sumac is a pesticide properties.

Serendipity strikes again. Wonder why all them old timers used sumac?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Serendipity strikes again. Wonder why all them old timers used sumac?

I don't know of any old-timers that used the stuff. I suppose everything that is burnable was burnt by someone one time or another in a smoker for fuel. So it would be easy to get testimonials to anything. 

But the point is that the compounds found in sumac are pesticides and are dangerous. Dangerous substances should always be replaced with less dangerous substances when possible. It doesnt make it safe just because old timers used it.

Often, advice is given on these list without regard to the dangers involved. 
Dave W. was the only one that mentioned that it should not be used while supers are on.
And I was the only one that posted the dangers from the MSDS. IMO, its irresponsible to suggest the use of treatments without some work of caution.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I don't know of any old-timers that used the stuff.

There's a few retired beekeepers around here that told me they always used sumac flowers (among other things) for smoker fuel. There's also numerous references to the use of sumac flowers for smoker fuel "out there" on the internet and it's also been discussed numerous times on BEE-L and here on Beesource mostly in threads about people's favorite smoker fuel. I didn't make this up. People have been using sumac flowers for smoker fuel long before I started beekeeping.

>But the point is that the compounds found in sumac are pesticides and are dangerous.

The compounds found in smoke in general is toxic and poisonous and some fuels produce smoke that is more toxic than others. Nothing new here. Creosote, a primary ingredient in just about any kind of smoke is generally considered carcinogenic. Smoke from the Creosote Bush which is particularly high in volatile hydrocarbons including creosote is yet-another commonly used smoker fuel. Cedar and pine, two of the more popular smoker fuels are of course very high in volatile combustibles compared to say, grass clippings.

Smoke is nasty stuff. I suggest reading Jim Fischer's article "Blowin' smoke":

http://bee-quick.com/reprints/smoke.pdf

>IMO, it’s irresponsible to suggest the use of treatments without some work of caution.

I couldn't agree more, but I'm not going into panic mode here over sumac smoke. Pyrogallol (Gallic acid, tannic acid) is fairly common, it's found in among other things, oak tree leaves and bark, tea leaves, and walnuts. It's commonly used in the tanning of leather. Doesn't make it safe, and I'm not suggesting it is but it doesn't make sumac flower smoke a highly dangerous pesticide compared to say cow dung, pine needles, or rhubarb leaves.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Pyrogallol (Gallic acid, tannic acid) is fairly common, it's found in among other things, oak tree leaves and bark, tea leaves, and walnuts. It's commonly used in the tanning of leather.

Just because something is common does not make it safe. 

As long as you a satisfied in your own mind that the means you are using to justify its use of a known dangerous chemical is the right one. But please follow the warnings and do not use the stuff when you have supers on.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Factoid:
Sumac berries have been used for.., well a long time I'm sure, to make a nice flavored tea. Simply steep in cold water over night. 
+++++++

George makes the best point of all in this thread. I mean really, has everyone given up on sitting around a campfire, or smokeing their bees, or cooking food over fire? I find it hard to believe there is anything that unique in sumac berries that is not already being burned in bee smokers, or other smoke you may come in contact with. I've been using oak leaves and/or walnut chips for over a year because thats whats in my yard.

Yes, if you are making LOTS of smoke wear a respirator. Yes, you don't want to smoke honey supers, at the least it will give you smoke flavored honey. I always use very light smoke when working around the honey supers.

But an argument that suggests sticking a plant in a smoker and smokeing your bees with it is bad, while the rest of the beekeeping community is already smokeing their bees for calmness, while also sticking strips of poison in the hive just plain falls flat.

[ June 30, 2006, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: MichaelW ]


----------



## Parke County Queen (May 22, 2006)

JEEZ - now I am more confused than ever! Ask two beekeepers a question and you get three different answers! Unfortunately, I don't have any supers on yet, so I may use some this weekend and see what happens. I know there was an article in one of my old beekeeping magazines. I will have to look for it.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

I'm glad we could help.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--But an argument that suggests sticking a plant in a smoker and smokeing your bees with it is bad, while the rest of the beekeeping community is already smokeing their bees for calmness, while also sticking strips of poison in the hive just plain falls flat.

A treatment is a treatment, no mater how you disguise it.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--JEEZ - now I am more confused than ever! Ask two beekeepers a question and you get three different answers!

Dear Parke County Queen, 

Ill let the Sumac advocates continue this discussion, but I wanted to have a parting word. 

You may get 3 different answers from other beekeepers, but you will get only one answer from me, and thats to avoid contaminates and treatments were ever possible. its not a popular position on these lists for me to go against the treatment advocates, but I was never one to jump on the bandwagon. 

There are a billion excuses one can use to justify the use of treatments, and I have not the time to fight them all off, but a treatment disguised as something else, is in the end still a treatment. 

You can prop up bad genetics and give them artificial advantage, and have success with your bees in the short term. But you will pay later when these lesser fit genetics are allowed to breed with your queens and surrounding feral population. 

OR, you can eliminate the treatments and breed from your best performers and weed out to bad, and improve the overall breeding of a sustainable fit population of honeybees for long term stability. Its your choice. 

Happy Beekeeping!


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

Pcolar, have you ever been to a doctor? Do you seek medical treatment when your family gets sick?

Just curious....


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hi Iddee,

This analogy has been tried before, putting humans at the same level as other organisms, but Ill play along for awhile. 

Yes, when they are sick, we seek medical treatment.

So you are saying the colonies are sick that have varroa?


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

so...if i smoke the hive to inspect it or to install a bee escape that is ok. however, if the hive has mites and a mite is killed because i've smoked it, that is considered a treatment and is wrong?


----------



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

This has been an interesting thread. I agree with Pcolar that I would like to eliminate "artificial" treatments in the hive, but I haven't found a way to do that quite yet. 

I continue to smoke my bees when I work them. I use whatever wood is available to me when I light up. I'm absolutely certain there is stuff in the smoke that isn't good for me and probably not all that good for the bees. I have no idea exactly what is in the smoke because, like I say, I tend to use whatever is available. 

I know I've used sumac wood. I wonder if that has the same compounds as the berries. I knocked some lower branches off a Douglas Fir and used that in my smoker. Was that a bad idea? 

These are probably unaswerable questions. You do the best you can.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Dick,

I am licensed as a pesticide applicator here in PA. I have many hours of training, and am required to take more training on an annual basis. According to the law, its use in beehives (same as some of the unregestered essential oils etc.) would be considered illegal, because it is not a registered pesticide.

If you smoke a colony with the intent of killing mites, or if you "pretend" it's not your intent but still select a fuel for smoke knowing that it will kill mites. This considered a pesticide, and therefore a treatment. 
Not only is the practice of using unregistered pesticides illegal, but it can also create undesirable effects.

What people are doing here is trying to justify the use of a pesticide by saying that it is only meant as a source of fuel for smoke.

Using this freakanalogy,,, 

You could then use apistan strips, and say that they are in there for frame marking purposes and not a pesticide.









You could treat with formic acid and say that you are using it to enhance the natural substance (formic) found in honeys and not using it as a pesticide.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--,,,I would like to eliminate "artificial" treatments in the hive, but I haven't found a way to do that quite yet. 

You gotta get on Organicbeekeepers if you arent already.

Not sure about Douglas Fir, it would probably be ok, but I would avoid any substances that are known to kill mites, because this would be a treatment and make fair assessments of colony performance or mite resistance more difficult.

How I eliminated treatments,,,

I basically tried to do what the Lusbys have done. First I regressed. Dee and Ed place high emphasis on ferals, so I started collecting ferals and killed off any queen that even was suspected of being from commercial lines. Of course, many ferals originated from domestic colonies, so I kept record of which swarms were caught in rather remote and woodland areas which might suggest lesser domestic influence. 

I also started to assess all colonies and swarms each year for all the routing performance and desired traits. I never feed bees as I want bees that can thrive in my environment without crutches. I wont go into all of this selection stuff, but I will say I am very strict and queens will loose their heads if performance isnt excellent. Poor performers are replaced with my best performing feral swarms that I assess. It took me several years, but I am now averaging about 10% winter loss, which isnt bad.


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

>>>>many ferals originated from domestic colonies<<<<

Joe, ALL ferals originated from domestic colonies in the US. That's what the word means. I don't know the technical definition for pesticide, but to my limited education, it is a substance made or refined for the sole purpose of killing pests other than plants. Any substance that grows on it's own that I use to control pests is not, in my opinion, a pesticide.

IE: Cedar wood in my closet for moths...
Marigolds in my tomato garden.
Snakes in my barn for rats and mice.
Guineas in the yard for ticks.
I could go on and on.
To me those, and smoke from any local growing plant for mites are not pesticides.

If I am wrong, it won't be the first time, and probably won't be the last.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

---->
Marigolds in my tomato garden.
Snakes in my barn for rats and mice.
Guineas in the yard for ticks.
I could go on and on.
----->

Iddee,
This is a common tactic to go off on ridiculous examples to try and prove a point. I was hoping you would be above that. 

Anyhow,,,

According to the EPA Definition:

"A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest...."

So that includes "any substance" obtained from plants growing in your yard that are stuffed in your smoker and used as a pesticide.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

....and of course it's also illegal to use Crisco patties in your hive and powdered sugar.

>...or if you "pretend" it's not your intent but still select a fuel for smoke knowing that it will kill mites.

ahh, i see. so, now we must test all smoke to make sure it DOESN'T kill mites in order to smoke our hives legally. interesting.

[ June 30, 2006, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Dick, I just got done telling Iddee,

This is a common tactic you are employing to go off on ridiculous statments to try and prove a point. I was hoping you would be above that.









My point is that once you start a routine of killing mites for your colonies that cant hold their own, it becomes impossible to evaluate these colonies for any mite resistant traits they might have. You then are propping up bad genetics which will survive and produce plenty of non resistant stock that can then negatively impact any resistance that other colonies might have against the mites when your best queens mate with this inferior stock. 


A quote strait from Marla Spivak:
"Putting pesticides into a bee colony is not a long-term solution and risks contaminating bee products (honey and beeswax) besides. My goal is to breed bees that are resistant to diseases and mite pests so beekeepers don't have to use pesticides."


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

Well your first post on the thread was about smoking pot. Then you wrote about "argressive genetics" as compared to something about non-Jewish bees. Next you mentioned eating sumac will cause vomiting. Now you are making accusations that I'm resorting to ridiculous statements. Really!









[ July 01, 2006, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>If you smoke a colony with the intent of killing mites, or if you "pretend" it's not your intent but still select a fuel for smoke knowing that it will kill mites. This considered a pesticide, and therefore a treatment. Not only is the practice of using unregistered pesticides illegal, but it can also create undesirable effects.

Joe, first let me say that in principle at least I agree with your opinions on treatments. I think a lot of people here on Beesource agree with the concept of treatment-free beekeeping, even if they haven't fully achieved it. So you don't need to get all defensive.

That said, I have to take exception to your above atatement! You are mixing two different concepts here- one that treatments are bad, which I basically agree with and the other that any use of a substance that impacts mites is a pesticide and that the use of an unregistered pesticide is illegal.

Balderdash! What's illegal is using a labeled pesticide in a fashion other than it's recommended use, or for a purpose contrary with it's stated purpose i.e., leaving Apistan strips in your hives for 6 months, or using them with supers on. That's illegal.

You make it sound like anyone using sumac smoke to control mites is using an unregistered pesticide and is breaking the law, and they're not.

Let's take powdered sugar as an example. It is not a labeled pesticide and it is used in bee hives to knock down and kill mites. Are you suggesting that using powdered sugar in this manner is illegal? I hope not!

So go ahead and promote treatment-free beekeeping, but drop the scare tactics please!

George-


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Well your first post on the thread was about smoking pot. 

This was to illustrate the absurdity when someone claims to use a fuel that has known pesticidal qualities and pretends be using it only for its smoke quality. 
The saying I didn't just fall off the turnip truck fits real good here. 

--Then you wrote about "argressive genetics" 

It is obvious when using pesticide in your smoker that aggressive colonies would get a higher dose.

--as compared to something about non-Jewish bees. 

I have no idea what you are talking about here!!!

--Next you mentioned eating sumac will cause vomiting. 

That was a quote from the MSDS, and firmly rooted in FACT.

--Now you are making accusations that I'm resorting to ridiculous statements. Really!

Well your comment that 
<<<we must test all smoke to make sure it DOESN'T kill mites>>> is a bit ridiculous. 

But from a reality stand point, it is certainly different when one knowingly chooses a fuel that was researched and found to have KNOWN PESTICIDAL QUALITIES as compared to one that chooses a fuel that would not have a KNOWN pesticidal side affect.


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

>>>>This is a common tactic to go off on ridiculous examples to try and prove a point.<<<<

No, I don't think it is off-track. I think it fits quite well. We are discussing trying to rid ourselves of a pest using locally available, natural remedies. I grew up with animals of all kinds and we never called a vet. We went with the age old remedies. 
More examples are:
Butter for distemper in puppies. 
Chewing tobacco for worms in goats.
Coal for worms in pigs.
Lye in dogs and cats for worms.

How many more would you like?

No, they are not ridiculous examples. They are tried and proven ways to keep your livestock and pets healthy,and yourself.

Bees are livestock, and I will use other "Grandma's remedies" if I can find them.

PS.Dick was referring to mispelling gentle, and spelling it gentile, or non-jewish.


----------



## Ross (Apr 30, 2003)

http://jaxmed.com/articles/Diseases/p_sumac.htm 
(Toxicodendron vernix) can be found mainly in the eastern United States. It grows in peat bogs and swamps. To identify Poison Sumac, look for the fruit that grows between the leaf and the branch. *Nonpoisonous sumac has fruit growing from the ends of it's branches. *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumac 
*Rhus is a genus approximately 250 species of woody shrubs and small trees in the family Anacardiaceae. They are commonly called sumac or sumach. *Some species (including poison-ivy, poison-oak, and poison sumac), often placed in this genus, are here treated in the genus Toxicodendron, which differs in highly allergenic foliage and grayish-white fruit but is not genetically distinct. The name derives from the Greek name for sumac, rhous.........

In North America, the smooth sumac, Rhus glabra, and the staghorn sumac, Rhus typhina, are sometimes used to make a beverage, termed "sumac-ade" or "Indian lemonade" or "rhus juice". This drink is made by soaking the drupes in cool water, rubbing the active principle off the drupes, then straining the liquid through a cotton cloth and sweetening it. Native Americans also used the leaves and berries of the smooth and staghorn sumacs combined with tobacco in traditional smoking mixtures.

[ July 01, 2006, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Ross ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--That said, I have to take exception to your above atatement! You are mixing two different concepts here- 

I dont understand quite your point here but,,,

There is no mixing of concepts!!

They are separate comments unique the their own form, each comment stands on its own merits and one comment is not dependant on the other and therefore not mixed. It is a pesticide AND it is an illegal treatment, but one concept is neither inclusive nor dependant on the other in its factual basis.

Here, take a looksy:

Comment #1 
,,,if you "pretend" it's not your intent but still select a fuel for smoke knowing that it will kill mites. This considered a pesticide

I referenced strait from the EPA
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/securty.htm
Broadly defined, a pesticide is any agent used to kill or control undesired insects, weeds, rodents, fungi, bacteria, or other organisms.

Comment #2 
Not only is the practice of using unregistered pesticides illegal,

I referenced this from
MID-ATLANTIC APICULTURE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CONSORTIUM 
http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/Feb2000_newsletter.html
,,,IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE UNREGISTERED MATERIALS IN HONEY BEE COLONIES. USE ONLY REGISTERED MATERIALS AND FOLLOW LABEL DIRECTION AT ALL TIMES


--Balderdash! What's illegal is using a labeled pesticide in a fashion other than it's recommended use, or for a purpose contrary with it's stated purpose i.e., leaving Apistan strips in your hives for 6 months, or using them with supers on. That's illegal.


Unless an exemption is granted by the EPA. A pesticide is not legal unless it is registered by the EPA


--You make it sound like anyone using sumac smoke to control mites is using an unregistered pesticide and is breaking the law, and they're not.


If I may refer you to the advice from MAAREC

MID-ATLANTIC APICULTURE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CONSORTIUM 
http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/Feb2000_newsletter.html

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE UNREGISTERED MATERIALS IN HONEY BEE COLONIES. USE ONLY REGISTERED MATERIALS AND FOLLOW LABEL DIRECTION AT ALL TIMES


--So go ahead and promote treatment-free beekeeping, but drop the scare tactics please!

I dont see that I am using scare tactics. All information I posted about the health dangers of these substances and EPA laws concerning the illegality of using unregistered pesticides, have their bases in fact, having been referenced by me in the MSDS, MAAREC or other such creditable sources.

It is not my intent to scare you. But if you are scared by this, maybe your gut is right and you should be scared.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Iddee,

I agree with you that there are many natural remedies, and these known as 'soft pesticides' and should certainly have preference over hard pesticides when ever possible. 

But according to the EPAs definition of pesticides.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/securty.htm
Broadly defined, a pesticide is any agent used to kill or control undesired insects, weeds, rodents, fungi, bacteria, or other organisms.


--PS.Dick was referring to mispelling gentle, and spelling it gentile, or non-jewish.

LOL,








Alls I can say is thank Gosh the spell check didnt also add an i in there.


----------



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

>>"--Next you mentioned eating sumac will cause vomiting."

>"That was a quote from the MSDS, and firmly rooted in FACT."

I find it unlikely that you found an MSDS for sumac. This is one of the problems caused by the MSDS system. People use a certain MSDS and extrapolate the data to other materials. Sumac may contain a certain compound, but sumac is NOT that compound. 

We need to be careful that we don't give anyone the opportunity to say that the MSDS for oxalic acid shows that it can cause burns and tissue damage, therefore honey, which contains traces of oxalic acid, causes burns and tissue damage.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hillside wrote:
--I find it unlikely that you found an MSDS for sumac. This is one of the problems caused by the MSDS system. People use a certain MSDS and extrapolate the data to other materials. Sumac may contain a certain compound, but sumac is NOT that compound. 

I agree Hillside!!
But I did not say that!!!!!
People need to be more careful when quoting what other people say because that is not what I said!!

I SAID:
---à
Its The chemical, 1-2-3 benezenetriol, also known as pyrogallol, is the ingredient in sumac seeds that kills mites.,,,

Pyrogallol can be absorbed into the body by inhalation, ingestion or through the skin. It is toxic and an eye, skin and respiratory tract irritant and prolonged skin contact may cause dermatitis. Inhalation can cause coughing, shortness of breath, nausea and faintness. Ingestion can cause vomiting,,,, 
---à

In my training as a licensed pesticide applicator I am not worried about the carrier of the pesticide (that being the sumac seeds in this case), I am ONLY CONCERNED WITH THE ACTIVE INGREEDIENT as far as the pesticidal qualities are concerned. All pesticides contain both "active" and "inert" ingredients. In most PESTICIDES, the actual active ingredient is usually comprised of less than 5% and in many cases less than 1% of the total! 

So when one uses Sumac as a pesticide, and if one were to create a label for its use. The active ingredient which is found in Sumac would be listed on the label as 1-2-3 benezenetriol, also known as pyrogallol. Now when discussing the use of Sumac as a pesticide, you are ONLY referring to the active ingredient pyrogallol which is in this case inseparable from the name Sumac. Its the pyrogallol contained in the Sumac that is the active ingredient, and the rest of the sumac itself is the inert ingredient.


--We need to be careful that we don't give anyone the opportunity to say that the MSDS for oxalic acid shows that it can cause burns and tissue damage, therefore honey, which contains traces of oxalic acid, causes burns and tissue damage. 

This is true, but what you are referring to here would be found in the MDSD Section VI: Health Hazard Data. Some levels are well below the exposure limits and not harmful as higher exposures may be.


----------



## Ross (Apr 30, 2003)

WHICH sumac seeds. See my post. There are over 250 species of this plant.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hi Ross,

The Staghorn Sumac is the species we are talking about.

Or at least I am.









http://www.oplin.org/tree/fact%20pages/sumac_staghorn/sumac_staghorn.html

The flowers dry and turn dark red. 
That they remain clumped together when dry seems to make it an attractable choice for fuel for some beekeepers.

Of course, cow dung remains clumped together and is a well known source of fuel.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>it is certainly different when one knowingly chooses a fuel that was researched and found to have KNOWN PESTICIDAL QUALITIES as compared to one that chooses a fuel that would not have a KNOWN pesticidal side affect.

So, beekeeper "A" knows that smoking bees with sumac is against the law because he read some posts by a licenced pesticide applicator on an internet chat group. Beekeeper "A" is a criminal.

But, beekeeper "B" does not use the internet and picks up some sumac that's nearby to smoke his bees. Some mites are killed when beekeeper "B" smokes his hive. Now he is a criminal, because he didn't do a chemical analysis of sumac before using it?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Dick,

Why would you smoke your hives with a pesticide when there are many alternative choices?

For beekeeper A

,,,IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE UNREGISTERED MATERIALS IN HONEY BEE COLONIES. USE ONLY REGISTERED MATERIALS AND FOLLOW LABEL DIRECTION AT ALL TIMES

MID-ATLANTIC APICULTURE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CONSORTIUM 
http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/Feb2000_newsletter.html 

For beekeeper B

,,,IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE UNREGISTERED MATERIALS IN HONEY BEE COLONIES. USE ONLY REGISTERED MATERIALS AND FOLLOW LABEL DIRECTION AT ALL TIMES

MID-ATLANTIC APICULTURE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CONSORTIUM 
http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/Feb2000_newsletter.html 

But, beekeeper A could also be held liable for damages should harm be caused to someone as a result of the use of an unregistered pesticide. 

Have a nice day!









[ July 01, 2006, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>This was to illustrate the absurdity when someone claims to use a fuel that has known pesticidal qualities and pretends be using it only for its smoke quality.

I've never used it for it's 'known pesticidal qualities'. I've only used sumac when it was near the hives and I needed fuel for the smoker. I prefer burlap, but I often run out and grab what is handy. Sumac is a very effective fuel. Lights easily, stays lit, burns a long time and calms the bees. The only smoke I ever tried to use to kill mites is tobacco and I wasn't impressed with it's ill effects on the bees.

If pines grew in any numbers near the hive, I'd use pine needles. I'm sure smoke from them dislodges mites as well, but that still would not be my motivation.

To assume someone using any particular smoke is trying to kill mites is a big assumption. I've known people who were using sumac heads as smoker fuel 30 years ago before anyone knew what a Varroa was.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> For beekeeper B
> ,,,IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE UNREGISTERED MATERIALS IN HONEY BEE COLONIES. USE ONLY REGISTERED MATERIALS AND FOLLOW LABEL DIRECTION AT ALL TIMES
> 
> MID-ATLANTIC APICULTURE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CONSORTIUM
> http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/Feb2000_newsletter.html


where would the hapless beekeeper "B" find the label directions for use of sumac?

[ July 01, 2006, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Thanks Dick, This illustrates my point perfectly, there is no way to know what dosage of sumac is required or what dosage can do harm to the bees. 

Hapless beekeeper "B" will not find any label directions because it is illegal for use as a pesticide in honeybee colonies.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Sorry Mike, I should have put a smiley face besides my comment to you because I was only kidding. 

I know that you would NEVER treat your own bees with anything that was a known pesticide. And furthermore, I know that you would always recommend approved treatments over that of unregistered treatments, and never knowingly promote a smoke fuel that has known bi-directional pesticidal qualities to it that are not approved for use by the EPA and allowed under law in your home state.

[ July 01, 2006, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

OK, what may I use to make smoke for my bees legally? What material is registered with the epa as a smoke producer for bee hives, and where can I get it and the label for it?

Until I find out, I will just have to keep breaking the law, I guess. I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, so whatever I use will still be illegal if the great, magnificient, all mighty,all knowing epa hasn't put it's stamp of approval on it.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>Hapless beekeeper "B" will not find any label directions because it is illegal for use as a pesticide in honeybee colonies.

Beekeeper "B" is not using it as a pesticide. He's dumber than a fence post. He is merely smoking his bees. So what is the poor chap to do?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

I'm going to forsake the moral high ground here and state for the record that I want no part of the EPA or anything they'd register for and recommend for use in a bee hive- I'm sure it's nothing I'd want to store in my garage let alone apply to my bees.

The EPA is no friend of mine. I don't trust them and I don't trust their motives so quoting EPA boilerplate won't bring me warm fuzzies nor do their laws, regulations, recommendations, and oversight bring me any comfort. These are the people that brought us fluvalinate and cumophos, resistant varroa mites, and crappy queens. These are the people that pulled the teeth out of the Bee Precautionary Labeling law for pesticides hazardous to honey bees making it easier for pesticide manufacturers to sell their products and harder for beekeepers to obtain justice when their honeybees are killed due to thoughtless pesticide application.

I also choose not to buy into the idea that I'd be a criminal were I to choose to put sumac flowers in my smoker or powdered sugar into my hives to control varroa mites simply because these "treatments" haven't had holy water sprinkled on them by the EPA. I also choose to interpret MAAREC's recommendations in the spirit in which I believe they were intended- not to obfuscate and confuse beekeepers, but to provide sensible guidance in the care of honey bees and prevent the misuse of registered products for other than their intended purpose.

I realize that Joe, being a licensed pesticide applicator, is held to a higher standard of practice than people who are not trained, licensed, and regulated by the state, and this is as it should be. He should choose to interpret the applicable laws, rules, and recommendations in the strictest sense and apply them in his work because he is a professional, liable for his actions. I may be liable for my actions too, but this does not and will not prevent me from using common sense, thoughtful consideration, and informed concern in the care and maintainance of my honey bees. I am not claiming to be above the law, I am merely exercising my right to interpret the law in the light of my own informed perspective.

George-


----------



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

>>"Beekeeper "B" is not using it as a pesticide. He's dumber than a fence post." 

I just wish you guys would stop using me as an example.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> [The EPA] are the people that brought us fluvalinate 

No, Wellmark brought us fluvalinate, and
beekeepers rejoiced when they introduced it. 
It worked.

> and cumophos, 

Bayer brought us CheckMite (cumophos)

The EPA is phasing out organophosphates like
cumophos, and has eliminated their use in most
of agriculture. Beekeeping is one of the
areas where the EPA has been begged to allow
us to continue using it, as some find it
mission critical. The EPA continues to allow
Section 18 use, but I doubt if there will ever
be Section 3 approval for CheckMite, as the EPA
wants all organophosphates off the market as
a overt and stated policy goal.

> resistant varroa mites, and crappy queens.

While some may say that resistance was
unavoidable, and only a matter of time, it
seems strange to me that resistant varroa
have been a problem in specific areas, but
has not been a problem at all in my yards,
even after years of Apistan use. Perhaps
beekeepers have only themselves to blame
for the resistance problems.

> The EPA is no friend of mine.

So you feel that you only need to follow
rules and regulations created by those who
you LIKE? This sort of thinking ends up
making one believe that black is white, and
white black, which leads directly to being
run down at the first crosswalk one encounters.

> These are the people that pulled the teeth 
> out of the Bee Precautionary Labeling law

No, don't blame the EPA for the efforts of the
lobbyists hired by pesticide makers and applicators
don't blame the EPA for being forced to be more
"industry friendly" by the current administration.

There is no need to worry about smoker fuels,
one may use whatever one pleases. It is well
known that a wide range of substances can
increase one's mite drop count, even spraying
water can generate some impressive numbers.
This does not imply that smoker smoke needs to
be registered with anyone, or that any smoker
fuel has any value as a "pesticide".

I disagree with our resident licensed pesticide
applicator. His error seems to be in assuming
that smoking bees with Sumac (or whatever) with
the expectation of having any impact on the mite
population would be considered anything more
than a delusional belief. Now, if someone
started marketing something with an "active
ingredient" of Sumac, THEN the EPA would have a
say in the matter, and would refuse to approve
the product without proof that it was more than
a placebo.

> IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE UNREGISTERED MATERIALS 
> IN HONEY BEE COLONIES

No, it is illegal to use unregistered PESTICIDES
in honey bee colonies. "Materials" such as smoke,
stainless steel frame rests, plastic queen cages,
"Honey Bee Healthy" in feed and so on, are all
clearly not *pesticides* and are perfectly
legal to use as the beekeeper sees fit. Any
resulting contamination of honey would be an
FDA issue or, more likely, a state food-and-drug
issue.

As an aside, the EPA revoked the "registration"
for Bee-Go and Honey Robber back in 1998, but
no one seems to care. The products clearly are
pesticides, and without the revoked EPA
_"exemption from the requirement for a tolerance"_,
it becomes a "FDA issue", as the pesticide in
Bee-Go and Honey Robber is not legal to use in
any way with food, such as honey.

Somehow, neither the EPA or the FDA have bothered
to remind anyone of this, so the products continue
to be sold to unwitting beekeepers. Beekeeping
simply is not a large enough user of pesticides
to be as important as other segments of agriculture.


----------



## Ross (Apr 30, 2003)

I'd like to see a reliable reference that says STAGHORN SUMAC SEEDS contain a significant level of a pesticideal poison. Everything I find says the LEAVES are used to obtain pyrogallol for tanning leather. I would also like to see something on the effects of burning the seed heads. Has anyone analyzed the smoke? How do you know the pyrogallol survives burning?

I founds one reference that might indicate that we should use the leaves in the smoker ....
http://www.scrd.net/scrd_new/anglais/fds/a_blkm.htm
Composition Natural tanning extract obtained from milled Sumac leaves. 
Dangerous ingredients NONE 



3. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

Under normal use conditions, this product is stable. *May give off irritant fumes (SO2, SO3) and organic acids under action of extreme heat.* The product is astringent and of bitter taste. 

In case of ingestion in large amount, the product may cause gastric disorders.

[ July 02, 2006, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Ross ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--,,,,but (resistance)
has not been a problem at all in my yards,
even after years of Apistan use. Perhaps
beekeepers have only themselves to blame
for the resistance problems.

Jim,
Enjoyed your response!
Depending on what methods you are using to estimate resistance, natural resistance could be playing a part here. Herein lies the problem that beekeepers face is how to determine if a low mite drop test for resistance is due to Apistan resistance or is natural resistance the cause, this could hamper the beekeepers ability to identify resistant colonies. 

--There is no need to worry about smoker fuels,
one may use whatever one pleases. It is well
known that a wide range of substances can
increase one's mite drop count, 

This is true and I totally agree here!
Kicking a colony will produce a mite drop.
BUT if you are using a substance for the purpose of killing mites, you are by law using it as a pesticide. A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest. So using substances in your smoker during your routine bee work with the intent of also mitigating the mites would be using it as a pesticide.

--This does not imply that smoker smoke needs to
be registered with anyone, or that any smoker
fuel has any value as a "pesticide".

This is true!
BUT if you are using it to kill or mitigate mites, under EPA definition, you are using it as a pesticide. You probably understand as a scientist that it hasnt been determined the proper dosage for this substance that is lethal to the mites, and what the effects are on the honeybees, using it without this knowledge will probably only facilitate resistance to the agent in the process. 

--I disagree with our resident licensed pesticide
applicator. His error seems to be in assuming
that smoking bees with Sumac (or whatever) with
the expectation of having any impact on the mite
population would be considered anything more
than a delusional belief. 

Jim, you are elevating the nastiness.








It may kill a mite, it may kill hundreds. The error in our resident scientists statement is that he makes absolutely no consideration for method of application, which myself as the trained resident licensed pesticide applicator understand is paramount to insure effectiveness of any pesticide. 

I am however rather astounded that all the previous support for the use of selected fuels for use as pesticide, failed to mention anything about how to apply the pesticide. 

--No, it is illegal to use unregistered PESTICIDES
in honey bee colonies. "Materials" such as smoke,,,,

Sorry to cut you off, but the smoke would be illegal if it is used as a pesticide.

As far as the typo error, have to talk to MAAREC about that.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> I seem to remember an article in one of the bee journals.


There was an article on using on using sumac in one or two of the bee magazines some time back. As I remember the articles reported increased mite fall, more than from other smoke, when sumac was used. Shortly after the articles one of the bee supply companies offered sumac blossoms for sale in their catalog. I think they were only offered for a year and disappeared from their catalog the following year.

When varroa first appeared, tobacco smoke was suggested as a way to knock mites down. What elese has been suggested? Walnut leaves? 

I'd be very happy to have some find the silver bullet.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hi Dick,

While I'm waiting for Jims wrath to befall upon me.









Remember, when they say knock down mites, they mean just that.
Many of these smoke methods do not kill mites, instead they temporally knock them out and cause them to fall. With tobacco, most varroa will wake up shortly and crawl back onto bees.

There was allot of stuff that was suggested. Ive tried tobacco years ago before I regressed and eliminated all treatments. Tobacco, really whacked out the bees and if I recall correctly, many bees flew out disorientated and lost their equilibrium and flew in circles on the ground like a wounded flies do. It knocked the varroa out, and I brought them into the house and watched them recover one by one and crawl away. I never used it again after that due to how sick the honeybees seemed to get.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

OK let's get back to beekeeper "A" and "B". You've decided beekeeper "A" is a criminal because he knows he's killing mites using sumac smoke. But you haven't answered my question. As a licensed, highly trained, pesticide applicator: Is beekeeper "B" also a crook because he is using sumac smoke unaware that he's killing mites?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Dick,
I didnt go back and check, but I believe I stated that beekeeper A, if using sumac smoke as a pesticide would be using a substance that is unregistered by the EPA for use in honeybee colonies as a pesticide, and therefore using it illegally. I didn't say he would be a criminal. 

Beekeeper B if using sumac soley as a smoker fuel would not be using it illegally because he has no intent to kill or mitigate a pest.

IF I may add in my edit:
This does not give beekeeper B a loophole of "pretending" he has no intent to use it as a pesticide by using it in a manner intended to conceal it's use as a pesticide.

[ July 02, 2006, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Ross,
You may not be able to apply this information to the case of using it as for mite control. Unlike the tanning extract, the mode of application by smoking requires burning the sumac which may change the characteristics, creating unknown compounds. 

I remember reading a study that was done the effects of burning sumac for mite control, and I believe that they suspect pyrogallol as the active ingredient, but Im not sure this has been proven to be. From what I am reading suggests that pyrogallol may not be an effective pesticidal agent against the varroa, but it does have anti microbial qualities. There may be an as of yet other unknown substances created when sumac is burned that are affecting the mites and or honeybees or the person inhaling the smoke.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

So, beekeeper "B" has every right to use sumac to smoke his hive, but beekeeper "A" does not have that same right?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Bayer brought us CheckMite (cumophos)

Sure. But the EPA approved it. Now as you point out, they're looking to un-approve it along with the other organophosphates. Great! I could make a snide remark about hindsight being 20:20 but I won't. Whoops! Just did!

>The EPA is phasing out organophosphates like
cumophos, and has eliminated their use in most
of agriculture. Beekeeping is one of the
areas where the EPA has been begged to allow
us to continue using it, as some find it
mission critical.

So who knows best whether a product should be on the market? The end-users, the pesticide company making the stuff, or the regulatory authority who gets to decide if it's safe and prudent to use? Sorry, rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.

>> The EPA is no friend of mine.

>So you feel that you only need to follow
rules and regulations created by those who
you LIKE? 

I don't think I said that. In fact I know I didn't say that. What I said was "I am not claiming to be above the law, I am merely exercising my right to interpret the law in the light of my own informed perspective."

>> These are the people that pulled the teeth out of the Bee Precautionary Labeling law

>No, don't blame the EPA for the efforts of the
lobbyists hired by pesticide makers and applicators don't blame the EPA for being forced to be more "industry friendly" by the current administration.

Oh. Lobbyists. Right. So the EPA can be bought? Gee, I wonder how much it costs to buy-off a federal regulator or two? I bet it's expensive









>There is no need to worry about smoker fuels,
one may use whatever one pleases.

Well Jim, we agree completely on this one









>Now, if someone started marketing something with an "active ingredient" of Sumac, THEN the EPA would have a say in the matter, and would refuse to approve the product without proof that it was more than a placebo.

Golly, I hope they'd require more than just proof it's not a placebo! Is it safe to assume they would also be concerned about honey contamination, the health effects of short and long term exposure, and the impact on the health and vitality of our queens, or is that where the lobbyists come in?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>So, beekeeper "B" has every right to use sumac to smoke his hive, but beekeeper "A" does not have that same right?

I think Joe has maneuvered his way out onto a limb as is often the result of following a tenuous premise to it's absurd conclusion.

Let's either let him retreat or give him a hand saw


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--So, beekeeper "B" has every right to use sumac to smoke his hive, but beekeeper "A" does not have that same right? 

NO,

They both have the same rights!

But they dont have the right to us it as a pesticide because it is NOT registered for use in honeybee colonies.

Look at the sodium cyanide fiasco. 
Sodium cyanide that beekeepers were caught using to kill honeybees is registered for use in the commercial chrome plating business and in mining for extracting gold and silver from ore. It is not illegal to possess the compound, but it is also not registered as a pesticide anywhere in the United States and therefore illegal to use the substance as a pesticide.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I think Joe has maneuvered his way out onto a limb as is often the result of following a tenuous premise to it's absurd conclusion.

Very clever and crafty comment, 
But I can be clever to George!









Well at least I didnt choose to go out on a SUMAC branch George!









A sumac branch is a good analogy to the argument supporting the use of sumac illegally as a pesticide.

It is flimsy and not very strong support, and no foundation in law and will not hold under the weight of Scrutiny.

I would have choosen a fuel that is not suspected to have pesticide qualities like that found on a nice strong sturdy maple tree branch!  

Dick did not prove his point!
The laws on pesticide use are clear.

Although, I may have said it would be STUPID to use a substance that was suggested to have pesticidal qualities as a fuel when there are other less harmful alternatives. I don't believe I ever said it was illegal to use sumac as a smoke fuel.

The laws are clear, and you can refer back to the sodium cyanide example I gave in the last thread.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

Joe, I'm not trying to prove anythng. This has become neither a discussion or a debate. It has simply become a 'last word contest', so knock yourself out!









[ July 03, 2006, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

The EPA would do just fine if allowed to enforce the laws and standards of this country. As for whether they can be bought....the EPA director is appointed by the president. I'll let you decide what is and isn't being bought in light of a recent, sustained effect by the exucutive branch to undo the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts which were enacted OVERWELMINGLY by a Republican congress who believed strongly in protecting the future of the U.S.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"But I can be clever to George!"

Don't just be clever to George, please include the rest of us, we're waiting. . . . 

Keith


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

>Beekeeper B if using sumac soley as a smoker fuel would not be using it illegally because he has no intent to kill or mitigate a pest.

Actually this may not quite be true. If infact it is illegal to use sumac as smoker fuel to control pests in a beehive, then it is an illegal act to use it in a beehive period. Ignorance of the law or lack of intent are not a defense for commiting an illegal act unless intent is specifically codified in the law. That being said in reality they are treated much different. Following is an analology to illustrate:

The Law: It is illegal in the United States to posess the dried pods or straw of the opium poppy (Papaver Somniferum). No distinction is defined in the law regarding the violator's intent, it is illegal to posess it period.

Gardener A: An 80-year old woman who grows "ornamental" poppies in her flower beds. She saves the dried pods from year to year as a seed source to maintain her beds. She believes that "ornamental" poppies are not the same as opium poppies and has no knowledge to the contrary.

Gardener B: A 60-year old man who grows "ornamental" poppies in his flower beds and saves the dried pods from year to year. He has written and published articles on how to grow "ornamental" poppies and promotes the use of the pods/straw to make "opium" tea for use as a mild sedative/analgesic.

Both gardners are performing an illegal act (posession of poppy pods/straw). 

Gardener A has very little risk of being arrested or prosecuted.

Gardener B not only is at high risk of being arrested, if he is, it is almost guaranteed that he will be prosecuted because his knowledge and intent are easily documented and can be used against him in court.

I don't personally know if using sumac smoke could be considered an illegal act, since I have not done an exhaustive research of the applicable laws in my state. My gut feeling is that it would be almost impossible to apply the pesticide control laws in my state to this unless there was an "incident" involving sumac smoke being used in beehives that had been proven to be detrimental to human health in a major way. Sumac smoke is not a well known, documented highly used pesticide. If, in the absence of a law specifically forbiding its use, it could be determined based on existing pesticide laws that using sumac smoke was indeed an illegal act, a beekeeper using sumac smoke in almost any circumstances would most probably be viewed similarly to Gardner A above unless he/she had publicly documented and promoted its use as a pesticide. This still begs the question: "Should I use it?" Since the evidence of its effectiveness is "anecdotal" at best IMO its a question each beekeeper should ask themself and make an informed decision based on his/her own comfort level and sense of ethics.

[ July 03, 2006, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Gene Weitzel ]


----------



## Ross (Apr 30, 2003)

The term "silly" comes to mind with this discussion. Smoking bees is a common activity. Sumac has historically been used. Sumac is not illegal. Smoking bees with sumac is not illegal. Any other conclusion gets the silly verdict. Find one case in law and present it if you believe otherwise.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

oh come on Ross
being "reasonable" doesn't make me giggle nearly as much as being "silly"








go out
work the bees [smoke em with some sumac]
get hot and sweaty
get stung a few times
come in and read the "giggly thread"
all is right with the world  

Dave

[ July 03, 2006, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

Dave:
better yet
go out
work the bees
get hot and sweaty
get stung a few time
have some "ornamental" poppy tea








then read the "giggly thread"
oh yeah, all is right with the world for sure!


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)




----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Well at least I didn’t choose to go out on a SUMAC branch George!

Well you couldn't get very far out on a sumac limb Joe, nor very high off the ground if you tried. Fortunately sumac don't grow tall so in any case, you wouldn't have far to fall









I find it interesting that you can be so rabidly anti-treatment regarding your bees on the one hand and so vehemently pro-treatment as a licensed pesticide applicator on the other. Life is full of irony and in fact, such conflicts are not uncommon in people's lives. I personally think they broaden one's perspective. That's a good thing.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Fortunately sumac don't grow tall so in any case, you wouldn't have far to fall.

While most sumac don't get more than six or eight feet I see some that are 30 feet now and then. That's a long way to fall.


----------



## Sharkey (May 27, 2004)

Well.............

I just found this thread, and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. Didn't matter to me at all as to the outcome, just found it all highly amusing and entertaining.  

Thanks Guys (and gals, if there were any. )


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Gene Wrote:
--If infact it is illegal to use sumac as smoker fuel to control pests in a beehive, then it is an illegal act to use it in a beehive period.

According to the EPA it would depend if it was used as a pesticide or not.

The EPA link below explains it very well.
All should read the link that do not understand why it is illegal to use sumac as a pesticide in beehives.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/envirom/pestwhtr.htm

Heres some clips from the EPA link that apply to the use of sumac as a pesticide:

Many natural substances can be used as pesticides, such as extracts of pyrethrum, garlic, tea-tree oil and eucalyptus oil. When these natural chemicals are used as pesticides they become subject to the same controls as pesticides produced synthetically.

Another common misconception is that pesticides made from natural substances or 'home brews' are intrinsically safer in all respects than synthetically produced or commercial pesticides. All substances whether they are synthetic or naturally derived involve some degree of risk when they are used to control pests. 


PS. I have to include the clip below on this thread from this point on because I want Dick to always have the last word.









Dicks Word:
,,, This has become neither a discussion or a debate. It has simply become a 'last word contest',,,


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

>>>>PS. I have to include the clip below on this thread from this point on because I want Dick to always have the last word. [Smile]<<<<

Joe, you just won't do.









OK, you win. Everyone take notice, from this point forward, I will never use Sumac smoke to kill mites. Starting today, I will be using it as a deodorant to kill the smell of goldenrod honey being processed. I will even start in the spring to give it time to build up in the hive before the goldenrod begins to bloom in the fall.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

ahh, smoked honey
nothing could be finer









Dave


----------



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

OK, I'll take the pledge. I won't use sumac smoke either, but I may start making hive bodies out of the wood.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Great Iddee and Hillside!
I am glad I could save a few souls from the evils of sumac use.
Welcome home!

You see, tough love does work sometimes.









Sumac is known as the gateway smoke. Once you start using sumac, beekeepers get hooked and then find that it isnt enough to satisfy their cravings. They start experimenting stuffing all sorts greenery in their smokers that dont belong there, sneaking in the neighbors yard cutting clippings off their holly trees etc.. Then when they find this aint enough, then they move up to the harder stuff for use in their smokers like the highly addictive hamsters and gerbils mentioned earlier in this thread . Play it safe and stay straight.


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

>According to the EPA it would depend if it was used as a pesticide or not.

>The EPA link below explains it very well.
All should read the link that do not understand why it is illegal to use sumac as a pesticide in beehives.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.*au*/envirom/pestwhtr.htm

Are you living in Austrailia or New South Wales (NSW)? Because you are quoting Austrailian EPA and NSW code here.

[ July 04, 2006, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Gene Weitzel ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Yes it is an Australia site. But it does explain what a pesticide is as defined in Webster. Definitions of the English language would be the same weather in Australia or the USA.

Pesticide - an agent used to destroy pests 
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pesticide


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

>According to the EPA it would depend if it was used as a pesticide or not.

Statements and references to Webster and the Aussie's EPA clearly do not set policy at our EPA. 

Since your previous post does not specifically clarify its source, it is irrelavent and misleading as any American would interpret "EPA" being quoted by an American to mean the U.S. EPA and not the Austrailian EPA.

Here is a link to the code that defines our EPA policy regarding the registration of pesticides. 

Registration of Pesticides 

It does indeed have just as broad a definition of pesticide. However, the requirement for registration and control of a pesticide is only necessary in regard to sale and distribution of pesticides. In order for the EPA to be involved in regulating the use of a pesticide it must be to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.

Clearly using sumac smoke either as mite control or for the normal smoking purpose does not come under the EPA's regulation authority. Only if you were trying to sell a sumac based miticide would it be required to be registered.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

---->
Gene wrote:
--registration and control of a pesticide is only necessary in regard to sale and distribution of pesticides.

--Clearly using sumac smoke either as mite control or for the normal smoking purpose does not come under the EPA's regulation authority.
---->


Gene,
IF a substance is used as a pesticide, BY LAW it falls under the same regulation as any other pesticide would. 

Look at the sodium cyanide fiasco. 
Sodium cyanide that beekeepers were caught using to kill honeybees is registered for use in the commercial chrome plating business and in mining for extracting gold and silver from ore. It is not illegal to possess the compound, but it is also NOT REGESTERED AS A PESTICIDE anywhere in the United States and therefore illegal to use the substance as a pesticide.

Read about it:
http://www.pesticidesafety.uiuc.edu/newsletter/html/200501e.html 


--Statements and references to Webster and the Aussie's EPA clearly do not set policy at our EPA. 

I already provided the EPA (USA) definition earlier, her it is again.
It is virtually the same:

--->
According to the EPA Definition:

"A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest...."

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/#what_pesticide 
--->

So that includes "any substance" obtained from plants growing in your yard that are stuffed in your smoker and used as a pesticide.

[ July 05, 2006, 06:42 AM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"Sodium cyanide that beekeepers were caught using to kill honeybees"

I wasn't paying much attention to the fiasco. Were these bees being killed as part of what some folks in the frozen north call management? Or were they used to get rid of bees that no one wanted?

Keith


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

Joe:

I don't think anyone could argue that the use of sodium cyanide as a pesticide would not have unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. This is why its is use falls under the EPA's regulatory authority. It is also exactly why it is not registered for use as a pesticide. It is clearly not an applicable comparison.


I have no argument with your application of the EPA's definition of a pesticide as anything you stuff into your smoker. From Title 7 of the US Agriculture code:

*The term pest means
(1) any insect, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed...


The term pesticide means

(1) any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest...*

Technically, based on this general definition of pests and pesticides, the use of any smoke could be considered using an unregistered pesticide since we are using it to repel or mitigate the bees when we manage a hive. However, it clearly does not have any unreasonable adverse effect on the environment and therefore does not warrant any kind of regulation. As has been stated before in this thread it is absolutely silly to attempt to use this code to justify your position that the use of sumac smoke to mitigate mites is illegal because you are using an unregistered pesticide. Using this logic, since cement is not registered with the EPA for use as a pesticide (I actually used the National Pesticide Information Retrieval System to verify this), pouring a 20x20 cement slab under your beehives to control the pupation of SHB would be in violation of the law. Heck, the use of a cement slab to keep termites out of our homes would also be in violation of the law. This absolutely borders on the ridiculous. 

The use by special interest groups of this type of mis-interpretation of laws based on the technical definition instead of the context for which the law was created in order to further their own agenda is exactly what has perpetuated the "joke" that is the current state of the legal system in this country.

[ July 05, 2006, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Gene Weitzel ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

The sodium cyanide being used by beekeepers was used to control wax moths, not kill honey bees. Of course, any bees exposed to the cyanide would become casualties, too.

I've never had such heavy infestations of wax moths that I would resort to using cyanide against them, but I doubt I'd use cyanide even if the wax moths were that bad. It's another of those substances like I mentioned earlier on this thread: "If it's so bad that you have to wear protective gear to use it in your hives, do you want to eat some in your honey? Isn't it likely to harm the bees?" 

Sodium cyanide is also a "natural product," and it tends to break down quickly in the environment. The chemicals produced when it breaks down are innocuous.


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

Sumac has a long history of edible uses:

The hairy covering of the drupes is harvested and used as a spice (a deep red powder with a sour taste) in some Middle Eastern countries, particularly with rice. In North America, the smooth sumac, Rhus glabra, and the staghorn sumac, Rhus typhina, are sometimes used to make a beverage, termed "sumac-ade" or "Indian lemonade" or "rhus juice". This drink is made by soaking the drupes in cool water, rubbing the active principle off the drupes, then straining the liquid through a cotton cloth and sweetening it. Native Americans also used the leaves and berries of the smooth and staghorn sumacs combined with tobacco in traditional smoking mixtures. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumac ) 

The same definately cannot be said for sodium cyanide. Even though it is a "natural product" and breaks down in the environment into innocuous components, the potential adverse effects of its wide spread use/mis-use as a pesticide before it breaks down can be environmentally devastating. This is obviously why the use of substances such as sodium cyanide are regulated while the use of other substances such as Sumac are not.

[ July 05, 2006, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Gene Weitzel ]


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Gene has just sawed the branch!!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Keith, they were according to the article, using it illiegally as a pesticide.

[ July 05, 2006, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Gene, 
Think what you want,
But the EPA definition of pseticide remains:

--->
According to the EPA Definition:

"A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest...."

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/#what_pesticide 
--->


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

Joe:

You miss my point. My contention was never about the definition. My point is that the code makes it clear that the use of some substances as "pesticides" (based on this broad definition) do not require regulation or registration (see my cement example in previous post). Again I quote Title 7 of the US agriculture code:

(a) Requirement of registration
Except as provided by this subchapter, no person in any State may distribute or sell to any person any pesticide that is not registered under this subchapter. *To the extent necessary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the environment*, the Administrator may by regulation limit the distribution, sale, or *use* in any State of any pesticide that is not registered under this subchapter... 

It appears that their authority to regulate the sale and distribution of a substance to be used as a pesticide through registration is clear. But it is equally clear that their authority to regulate the actual *use* of an unregistered substance as a pesticide is limited to the extent necessary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.

Based on this distinction and the history of previous use in smokers as well as other edible uses, I don't see any way that "grabbing" some Sumac in my yard and using it in my smoker because I think it might have miticidal benefits would qualify it for regulation by the EPA. Again, it would be considered "silly" or frivolous to attempt to apply the code in this manner.

[ July 05, 2006, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Gene Weitzel ]


----------



## cphilip (May 25, 2006)

While all that is well and good its a matter of wether EPA pesticide regulations apply to the use of an individual private applicator at all. For one all regulations are derived from the point a Pesiticide/herbicide/Rodenticide is to be marketed and sold. It's at that point it becomes regulated. And even if it was to be submitted for permiting it would be on the fast track. As evidenced by the special handling of Biopesticides

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/index.htm 

The fact is that an individual burning a common wood/plant (Sumac) for whatever reason is not subject to EPA FIFRA regulation. He is not manufacturing or selling a pesticide. He is using a biopesticide but its not even listed as restricted us nor non restricted. And its not commercialy obtained because its not a commercial product. And so it does not fall under EPA as far as FIFRA is concerned. 

But be aware the EPA has lots of tentcles. But I seriously doubt one will catch you in this use of a natural method on your own property obtained from your own sources.

[ July 05, 2006, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: cphilip ]


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

>While all that is well and good its a matter of wether EPA pesticide regulations apply to the use of an individual private applicator at all. For one all regulations are derived from the point a Pesiticide/herbicide/Rodenticide is to be marketed and sold.

A good point, this comes from the fact that almost all federal regulations are derived from Congress' authority to regulate commerce between the states.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Ok Gene, you made your point!
Thanks for the good research you all others here have done, great stuff!

Hey, I got to go now, theres a real controversial thread going on over on bee forum about the definition of feral honeybee. 
See you all over there!









Best Wishes!


----------



## mrobia (Mar 21, 2005)

No doubt you could sell Staghorn Sumac berries in the "Health Food Store" as a "nutritional supplement" (and let people whisper that it cures the common cold, or avian flu or whatever) and get it passed by the FDA under the GRAS rule (Generally Recognized As Safe). Probably the same is true in the bee smoker.


----------



## ekrouse (Aug 26, 2004)

I've been using the red seed heads from the staghorn sumac for the last couple of years since reading a post on this website. I have never used poisons in my hives for anything, even though mites are present. I have screened bottom boards and use the powdered sugar dusting technique in the fall.

As far as the safety issue goes... I don't use any protective breathing apparatus. The little bit of smoke smells fine and there is plenty of information on the web about the consumption of products from these seed heads including making wine. Here's the link:

http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/staghorn.asp

Anything in moderation. In fact my father inlaw, a world recognized expert in public health, recently showed me several articles on how small amounts of radiation boost the human immune system.

-Eric


----------



## Ross (Apr 30, 2003)

Is powdered sugar registered as a pesticide?


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

No, it is an attractant. Everytime grandma bakes with it, it attracts all kinds of little pests.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>Is powdered sugar registered as a pesticide?

No. Some substances do not require registration.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Hey, I got to go now, theres a real controversial thread going on over on bee forum about the definition of feral honeybee. 
See you all over there! "

Excellent exit stradigy, Joe.


----------



## Grant (Jun 12, 2004)

Sorry, I've been away from my computer for a couple of months. In my church, we presume that when someone doesn't show up for a while, they're probably mad about something. That's not the case here, I've just been busy. 

I appreciate all that's been said about sumac. I'll add just a little of my experience.

Staghorn sumac berries, for me, burn quickly and hot, putting out a heavy, yellowish tinged smoke. I add a couple of branches of berries to a lit smoker and give the entrance a few puffs. The bees immediately increase their buzzing noise in response to this smoke, thus I conclude they do not like it. But then do they really appreciate any smoke?

As I give a few puffs under the screen bottom board, bees leaving the hive increase. After doing this for three or four hives, I have to reload more sumac branches. It burns quick. It's been suggested my smoker was too hot, and maybe it was. Maybe this year I'll try some green grass with the berries.

The smoke smells acrid so I only use it in the fall after the supers are taken off. I don't make it a practice of standing in the smoke as it billows out of my smoker, but I also do not wear any mask or respirator. 

As I've counted mites on a sticky board under my screens, smoking with sumac increases mite fall in greater numbers when compared to FGMO or plain smoke using cedar shavings. If you don't count mites, you don't really have a basis against which to judge its effectiveness and your observations are purely anecdotal assumptions.

But it has also been pointed out to me that fogging any substance, even water, will increase mite drop. I haven't tried water, but steaming the hive sounds intriguing, and likely non-toxic! 

IMHO, I think sumac works, to a degree. It's part of a number of things I do in the name of IPM. 

Grant
Jackson, MO


----------



## afleischer (Oct 6, 2015)

Gramps kept bees on his cherry farm in Traverse City, Mi years ago and he would add Sumac to his smoker way back then. He said it helped calm "hot bees". The bright red cones from Staghorn Sumac is edible and can even be steeped in hot water and strained to make a lemon flavored tea (anybody remember Euell Gibbonss?) . The Sumac with clusters of white berries is where the name "poison sumac" comes from.


----------



## beebad (Mar 28, 2019)

Sumac is the best smoker fuel, produces a nice smoke, stays lit forever and is free. Some cultures use it as a spice. 

I read the article about sumac having a limited effect on varroa last year. But this is NOT a substitute for best bee keeping practices as a varroacide so don't use it as such. Use it as smoker fuel.

If you see this growing in your area, run don't walk and harvest as much of it as you can...sore it in a bucket for use year round.


----------



## beebad (Mar 28, 2019)

Parke County Queen said:


> I did a search on sumac and read some previous posts. I have a couple of questions for Grant and Clint (or anyone else who uses sumac). I gathered some last year and kind of forgot it until now. I seem to remember an article in one of the bee journals. Am I correct that you have to use a respirator? Does it make the bees mad when you use the sumac smoke? I saw one of the guys said the bees hate it. Do you use it every time you enter the hives or just occasionally? Thanks!


I also use staghorn sumac as smoker fuel of choice. Its free stays lite forever and makes a nice smoke...there iis also a varroa benefit to it.


----------

