# Why not use Oxalic Acid?



## snl

With and all the positive feedback on its use and so many commercial beekeepers using OA in a dribble and others using it in a vaporized, why are YOU not using it?

It's pennies per treatment whether used in a dribble or vaporized (outside the initial cost of the vaporizer). Well below the costs of other treatments.

Again, unless you've remarkable bees that resist both the varroa mite itself and all viruses the mites bring into the hive OR have decided to go the treatment free route, 
why are you not using it?


----------



## Dominic

For a lot of americans, it's not a registered pesticide, and thus illegal to use as such. A pity for them, really.


----------



## WLC

Dominic, what's even stranger is that the CHC sent the ABF the required materials for OA registration in the U.S. . But, the ABF never followed through. So, Canada did try to help U.S. beekeepers to use OA for treatments.

"The Canadian Honey Council has provided the American Beekeeping Federation their registration data packet to expedite the registration of OA in the USA. As a result, the recommended concentration of the OA solution that will appear on the US label will most likely be identical to the Canadian label. "

(Aliano, 2009)


----------



## snl

Dominic said:


> For a lot of americans, it's not a registered pesticide....


Unfortunately it is a registered pesticide NOT an approved mitecide


----------



## WLC

snl said:


> Unfortunately it is a registered pesticide NOT an approved mitecide


Let's face it. It's registered as a toilet cleaner.


----------



## snl

WLC said:


> It's registered as a toilet cleaner.


That also happens to be a very effective mitecide that it used worldwide as such.....


----------



## EasternIowaBees

What are the pros and cons of the dribble method vs. vaporizing? Obviously, there is the cost of the vaporizer, but beyond that, what other advantages or disadvantages are there that make one method of application preferable over the other?


----------



## Honey-4-All

snl said:


> With and all the positive feedback on its use and so many commercial beekeepers using OA in a dribble and others using it in a vaporized, why are YOU not using it?
> 
> It's pennies per treatment whether used in a dribble or vaporized (outside the initial cost of the vaporizer). Well below the costs of other treatments.
> 
> Again, unless you've remarkable bees that resist both the varroa mite itself and all viruses the mites bring into the hive OR have decided to go the treatment free route,
> why are you not using it?


Something here smells like a sales pitch. Anyone else getting the same whiff of acid burning I do? OMG.......... my lungs.... I can't breath. SNL responds "Then wear your mask as prescribed....."


----------



## Oldtimer

EasternIowaBees said:


> What are the pros and cons of the dribble method vs. vaporizing? Obviously, there is the cost of the vaporizer, but beyond that, what other advantages or disadvantages are there that make one method of application preferable over the other?


Vaporising is better for the bees, but the dribble method is a whole lot easier for the beekeeper especially if there are a lot of hives involved.

When OA is vaporised into a hive it forms a vapour which distributes through the hive and condenses on everything, bees included. So everything has this fine acidic coating that kills mites, there is nowhere for them to hide, unless they are inside a brood cell. A vapour treatment done right will typically kill mites at a similar level to what Apistan would have to non resistant mites, for around 7 days. After that the kill rate rapidly drops off.

A dribble is different. OA is mixed with water, and only works if there is also sugar in the mix. It is squirted over the combs and gets spread around and also kills mites, however a lot more OA has to be put into a hive than if a vapour was used. Because the mix contains sugar, it is inevitable the bees will store some of it, and consume some of it. This can result in stomach problems for the bees, and if in food fed to brood, can kill larvae soon as they hatch from the egg, hence a winter OA dribble is known to have possible repercussions on spring brood nest development.

The reason a dribble rather than vapour is favoured by most commercial beekeepers, is the simplicity. A large batch can be mixed and a guy simply walks around with any kind of device that can squirt a measured amount of liquid each hive is treated in seconds, where a vapour treatment can be minutes per hive.


----------



## enjambres

So, if using the dribble method (OA + water/sugar syrup) may result in bees ingesting OA with somewhat detrimental effects on their digestion, then what would happen if I use OA vaporization in a hive where I have already placed sugar bricks - or for that matter if the bees have open honey cells that they are in the rpocess of consuming.

Should I take the bricks out beforehand - I can picture the ding-dong food-riot that would cause - but if I _could_ get them out, how would I avoid any OAV-derived crystals from landing on any open honey in the cells? This is still puzzling me.

And as a side query on the OAV topic, does anyone know the gram to volume (in teaspoons or ml) conversion rate for OA? I see the dosing rate quoted in grams, but that's not a convenient range for me to use.

Enj.


----------



## Oldtimer

Pretty certain it would condense onto the sugar bricks & get consumed, yes. Me, I'd temporarily remove them.

Bear in mind, this will happen to any hive with unsealed honey. As an example I once thought it would be a good idea to vaporise some new swarms before they had sealed brood so all the mites would be exposed to it. Sounded like a good idea and it did in fact kill pretty much all the mites. BUT, what also happened was that being new swarms, they were building new comb and filling them with nectar, the whole hive was filled with nectar. The OA went onto it, and for weeks all I could find in those hives was newly laid eggs, soon as they hatched they died. It was literally weeks before the OA concentration in the feed was low enough that they could actually raise some live brood from those eggs, it was a great lesson.

I do OA vaporising it is a wonderful tool, and cheap. But having learned the hard way I'm now very aware of the other factors in the hive before I'll do it.


----------



## beekuk

Oldtimer said:


> The reason a dribble rather than vapour is favoured by most commercial beekeepers, is the simplicity. A large batch can be mixed and a guy simply walks around with any kind of device that can squirt a measured amount of liquid each hive is treated in seconds, where a vapour treatment can be minutes per hive.


OT, regards time, it depends on the vaporizing equipment used, the vaporizer i use only takes 25 seconds per treatment, this is continuous from hive to hive, ie no cooling down between hives, no opening of hive, just a small quarter inch hole drilled in the side,and faster than the trickle method.


----------



## Oldtimer

Hmm.. Yes I saw one of those things advertised but out of my price league. Would you mind sharing what you use, cost, etc?


----------



## Oldtimer

Oops, just realised this is a sponsors thread, want to start a different threads on it Beekuk?


----------



## Daniel Y

Honey-4-All said:


> Something here smells like a sales pitch. Anyone else getting the same whiff of acid burning I do? OMG.......... my lungs.... I can't breath.
> 
> Might be a great product that helps kill mites like a sledge hammer but until OA is legal and registered in the US I think anyone who values their personal or business assets is a blame fool to sell anything that promotes or facilitates its use. When a jury is asked to rule in your favor when some nut forgets to put his respirator on when using your machine I sure hope you have a great defense they will believe. $$$ bye bye birdie. You are selling them for the express purpose of acidifying mites aren't you?


Can you show one case where someone was harmed vaporizing OA?


----------



## jmgi

Lets talk about the residue in the hive from doing OA treatments instead of all the happy talk about how well it works. Can anyone answer to that with any degree of certainty?


----------



## Oldtimer

I don't think anyone can, I've seen the subject raised before and nobody could say with any certainty that there were any harmful chemicals left.

For me, all I can say is I use the cheapo "dirty" OA, ie, not medical grade just the stuff used for bleaching timber decks. Probably got a bit of dirt in it, don't know.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> does anyone know the gram to volume (in teaspoons or ml) conversion rate for OA? 

Randy Oliver has extensive information about using oxalic acid against varroa on his site. The page linked below is regarding the correct proportions for the "dribble" method, but coincidentally offers an oxalic acid _grams to teaspoon_ conversion:


> Discarding the outlier (spoon was probably not leveled off) the average value is 3.7g oxalic acid per teaspoon.
> 
> http://scientificbeekeeping.com/oxalic-acid-treatment-table/


----------



## snl

jmgi said:


> ....residue in the hive from doing OA treatments.......Can anyone answer to that with any degree of certainty?


"If oxalic acid is used properly, there is absolutely no risk of problems with the honey." 

From.....
Anton Imdorf1 and Eva Rademacher2 European Working Group for Integrated Varroa Control 1 Agroscope Liebefeld-Posieux, SwissBee Research Center, CH-3003 Bern 2 Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Biologie/Neurobiologie, Königin-Luise-Strasse 28-30, DE-14159 Berlin


----------



## Dominic

jmgi said:


> Lets talk about the residue in the hive from doing OA treatments instead of all the happy talk about how well it works. Can anyone answer to that with any degree of certainty?


The studies I saw showed that OA did result in some bee mortality. As for residues, OA and FA treatments both increased levels of their respective substances in honey of a treated super, but not dangerously so. OA more than FA, I believe.

Personally, I'd like to know the effect of OA on drones, which I have yet to see, and on uncapped larvae. Seems every treatment there is, both natural and synthethic, damage drone fertility, though I've yet to hear about the effects of OA on them, presumable because it is usually applied when they don't matter anymore, despite it appearing as an interesting product to use in combination with brood breaks in-season.


----------



## WLC

My complaint has been that many beekeepers mishandle OA. It's more than just not knowing how to get the correct final OA concentration in syrup when using the dihydrate.

In my opinion, it's far more of a health and safety risk to the beekeepers themselves.

I've seen it in videos being measured and mixed on kitchen counters, vaporized with the beekeeper getting a good wiff of the vapor (w/o protection), etc. .


----------



## snl

WLC said:


> My complaint has been that many beekeepers mishandle OA. It's more than just not knowing how to get the correct final OA concentration in syrup when using the dihydrate.
> 
> In my opinion, it's far more of a health and safety risk to the beekeepers themselves.
> 
> I've seen it in videos being measured and mixed on kitchen counters, vaporized with the beekeeper getting a good wiff of the vapor (w/o protection), etc. .


It's no more of a health or safety issue than other products that are mishandled/abused or not applied as prescribed.......


----------



## WLC

snl said:


> It's no more of a health or safety issue than other products that are mishandled/abused or not applied as prescribed.......


That's the problem here in the U.S., it doesn't come with application instructions/warnings.


----------



## deknow

I'm going to take this opportunity to agree with WLC. I've told the story before...purchased a vaporizer (this was like 10 years ago), used it one fall. I have the thing sitting around and meet someone at the local bee club that is looking for one, I don't need or want mine anymore and it was worth $75 to the beekeeper...seems like a no brainer to sell it to him.

...until we start talking and it becomes clear that he doesn't understand anything...he is planning to vaporize liquid formic acid in the thing. I told him I couldn't find the vaporizer and never sold it to him...I didn't think it was safe for him to have, and I'd rather someone else sell him one if he really wants to try.

Vaporizing and/or mixing OA is no joke. IMHO, selling vaporizers that can't be used legally (especially with the food security awareness/regulations that are coming into play) isn't a joke either...especially if the customer is mislead by claims of safety and effectiveness and not told by the person taking their money that they will be in violation of the law if they use the product. Such a warning/disclaimer seems like a minimum amount of respect and care one can show to their customers.

deknow


----------



## WLC

Dean:

What needs to happen is that beekeepers need to put together the registration information from the CHC

http://www.honeycouncil.ca/

with this unit at Rutgers

http://ir4.rutgers.edu/

to get the process going so that U.S. beekeepers can use it as a legal acaricide.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

This Swiss government site offers considerable "official" information on oxalic acid treatment in hives, including a version in the _English _language:

http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/imkerei/00316/00329/02081/index.html?lang=en

One of the documents available includes a study on operator safety when applying oxalic acid to hives, including using the vaporization method. The conclusion of the study ...


> Thus, based on the presented data, a commercial apiarist could use oxalic acid treatments during the whole year 40 hours a week without damaging his health.
> 
> http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/imker...O2Yuq2Z6gpJCDeHt,gWym162epYbg2c_JjKbNoKSn6A--


Of course, appropriate safety measures need to be used. Click the link for more details.


----------



## snl

deknow said:


> Vaporizing and/or mixing OA is no joke.  IMHO, selling vaporizers that can't be used legally (especially with the food security awareness/regulations that are coming into play) isn't a joke either...especially if the customer is mislead by claims of safety and effectiveness and not told by the person taking their money that they will be in violation of the law if they use the product. Such a warning/disclaimer seems like a minimum amount of respect and care one can show to their customers. deknow


There are NO misleading claims of efficacy, OA works. As to using it safely, the website and instructions clearly state precautions needed. It has been stated over and over that OA is a pesticide and is not approved as a mitecide EVEN tho the rest of the world uses it as mitecide. It's been mentioned in this thread and others several times. 

OA misuse is no different than other products that are misused, mishandled or abused.


----------



## snl

WLC said:


> That's the problem here in the U.S., it doesn't come with application instructions/warnings.


You post that as if it's fact, it is not. Every OA vaporizer I've purchased comes with application/warning instructions.........


----------



## WLC

snl:

Maybe it's time for you, and other OA product providers, to form an industry group and get the ball rolling on formal registration of OA for mite treatments.

No one is stepping up to the plate.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

EPA registration is a very expensive process. The current _application fee_ alone is $597,693.00 (EPA calls it a "registration service fee". See category 020 (mentions beehives specifically) at this link:

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/fees/pri...pretations.pdf

Of course, that is just the _registration _fee. No doubt you will also need an _army _of lawyers  to prepare the documents.


----------



## snl

WLC said:


> snl: Maybe it's time for you, and other OA product providers, to form an industry group and get the ball rolling on formal registration of OA for mite treatments. No one is stepping up to the plate.


It's going to take some one/group/organization that's larger than the few manufactures/distributors of vaporizers to move this along. There is little or no financial gain to be made from this. OA Vaporizers are legal, OA is legal, what is illegal is using the OA as mitecide in a US beehive again even tho the rest of the world is doing so. I'm talking to my State Senator, talk to yours as well ... we'll see 

Larry


----------



## WLC

Rader, just take a look at this page from Rutgers:

http://ir4.rutgers.edu/Biopesticides/Beeregistrations.pdf

Registration might not be through the regular process.


----------



## deknow

One might look at Tommy Chong's incarceration and think about what it means to be selling and marketing a device specifically to do something that isn't legal.

deknow


----------



## snl

deknow said:


> Can you point these out to me...I don't see them on your website. All I see is:
> "Use appropriate protection as you should not breathe the oxalic acid fumes."
> 
> If you think this is important information for your customers, can you point to where it is on the website where you sell these things?


........... the video demonstration clearly points this out.


----------



## deknow

Rader Sidetrack said:


> One of the documents available includes a study on operator safety when applying oxalic acid to hives, including using the vaporization method. The conclusion of the study ...


I think it prudent to point out that this was a small number of beekeepers (20) who were being watched and had extra measuring equipment setup. I know that I do things differently in the beeyard when people are around and when I'm alone (it's especically important to take stings heroically if there are girls around)...never mind if there is a researchers with specialized equipment setup.

The conclusion doesn't meet with my own observations that you don't want to breath the fumes coming off the vaporizer...I know from experience.

deknow


----------



## snl

deknow said:


> The conclusion doesn't meet with my own observations that you don't want to breath the fumes coming off the vaporizer...I know from experience. dteknow


We can't stop you from "huffing" spray paint either........ it's your choice...


----------



## deknow

snl said:


> We can't stop you from "huffing" spray paint either........ it's your choice...


...except that the spraypaint manufacturer tells me not to....in writing, on the product.

deknow


----------



## beekuk

snl said:


> We can't stop you from "huffing" spray paint either........ it's your choice...


 Or just walking around breathing in harmful diesel particulates from vehicles, they should all have a big warning sticker on them.:shhhh:


----------



## jim lyon

deknow said:


> One might look at Tommy Chong's incarceration and think about what it means to be selling and marketing a device specifically to do something that isn't legal.
> 
> deknow


To me thats a pretty good parallel and a good example of why the government shouldn't get involved in victimless crime and not an example of why they should or why we need to pay more attorneys, fill out more paperwork and give Big Brother more dollars. If innocent people are put at risk it's one thing but at some point personal accountability needs to kick in here. Hardware stores and gas stations everywhere sell products that must be handled with care yet the public demands these products be available. Are you also concerned about the health of those using it as a wood bleach? Is your primary concern beekeeper safety or is your issue that you think oa is harmful to bee hives and affecting the health of the worlds bee hives. If so just say so and start a thread on it. It's a more important topic than whether someone who chooses to vaporize oa accidentally inhales some and then whether he is smart enough to either stop or take more precautions. Personally it's one of the main reasons I choose to use it as a dribble and not a vapor.


----------



## deknow

Why did you ask such an open question if you didn't want discussion?

One would think that _adding_ safety warnings to a website would be a better solution to not having them there than deleting the posts pointing out that they aren't there....if safety of one's customers was a concern.

deknow


----------



## Hawkster

What would be the result pif selling the honey to consumers, do we need to mark it as treated with an unapproved pesticide? it is so attractive because it seems easy and cheap but I fear the implications of using something that has not been studied by the FDA (or the EPA or whoever does these things !). When a customer asks me if I treat i do tell them what I treat with (MAQs and API LIFE) and explain that formic acid is natural in the hive and that the thymol comes from Thyme plants and is not used with supers on, not sure what to tell them if I used OA, so I have to stay away from against the complaints of my wallet and my better sense.


----------



## snl

deknow said:


> One would think that _adding_ safety warnings to a website would be a better solution to not having them there than deleting the posts pointing out that they aren't there....if safety of one's customers was a concern. deknow


The warning is there. If you choose not to read it or view it or it does not meet with your satisfaction, that's fine. But a discussion on how I run my website is not up for discussion.


----------



## WLC

snl said:


> It's going to take some one/group/organization that's larger than the few manufactures/distributors of vaporizers to move this along. There is little or no financial gain to be made from this. OA Vaporizers are legal, OA is legal, what is illegal is using the OA as mitecide in a US beehive again even tho the rest of the world is doing so. I'm talking to my State Senator, talk to yours as well ... we'll see Larry


I've reached out to someone at IR4 on the issue.

Let's see what they say.


----------



## snl

Hawkster said:


> not sure what to tell them if I used OA, so I have to stay away from against the complaints of my wallet and my better sense.


That OA is natural in many leafy vegetables. That the rest of the world is using it and in fact many, many, many commercial beekeepers in the US are using it.

The point of this thread was to ask why your are not using it and some have replied to that simple question. You do not have to use it at all. It is up to you.


----------



## WLC

snl:

I see the issue as being related not so much to it's safety for bees or honey.

I've gone over the safe handling issue before.

While beekeepers can get OA in various pure forms in other countries, whether it's tablets for use by small scale beekeepers to use in a syrup dribble, or in powder form for vaporization, that's not the case here in the U.S..

So, it becomes an issue of where to get OA in the right grade/purity.


----------



## beekuk

Hawkster said:


> When a customer asks me if I treat i do tell them what I treat with (MAQs and API LIFE) and explain that formic acid is natural in the hive and that the thymol comes from Thyme plants and is not used with supers on, not sure what to tell them if I used OA, so I have to stay away from against the complaints of my wallet and my better sense.


Oxalic is also a natural ingredient of honey, and in the bees body.


Residues in honey
After the 1999 treatment, the oxalic acid content of the unsealed honey collected from the supers increased up to the value of 0,59 mg/kg that was reached on the fourth day. From the eighth day on, the contamination was lower than 0,1 mg/kg. Honey stores sampled during the following autumn still contained 0,07-0,1 mg/kg. These values are small if compared to the natural content of oxalic acid in honey, which ranges between 3 and 760 mg/kg according to the botanical type (NANETTI et al., 2002), and lay within its natural range of variability. This indicates a low risk of important contamination in the honey intended for extraction.
In 200
2 the honey was collected from combs that were built by the bees in the period between two subsequent samplings, reducing the possible influence of dilution with non-contaminated pre-existing honey. This makes the relevant data much more representative of the actual transfer from bees to honey. In this case, a maximum of 54,2 mg/kg was recorded 12 hours after the treatment (fig. 5) but a steep decrease followed, leading to values ranging between 6 and 13,8 mg/kg in the period 1- 12 days after treatment. Further recordings laid below 1 mg/kg.



Natural content of organic acids
Formic and oxalic acid are natural honey
constituents. It is not clear to what extent they
originate from bees or from the nectar, but it has
been reported that oxalic acid is added to honey by the bees (Echigo and Takenaka, 1974).


----------



## Barry

Surely Dean, that warning on a can of paint isn't what keeps you from inhaling it? I'll bet you wouldn't do that even if the warning wasn't on it.  Hopefully there is a commonsense balance within this issue.

Mod, feel free to delete if this is off topic in this thread.


----------



## snl

WLC said:


> snl:
> So, it becomes an issue of where to get OA in the right grade/purity.


The OA sold in stores as wood bleach according to the manufacturer is 99.5% pure...........


----------



## deknow

Jim,
I think safety is the primary issue here.

Yes, much of the safety issues have to do with the fact that it isn't legal (and therefore is a bit clandestine)...an unfortunate fact.

I also think there are other reasons not to use it (damage to the malphagian tubules was well documented last time I looked...and certainly if harming the microflora is to be avoided OA is a terrible choice)....but these come in second for me, at least as far as why it shouldn't be touted as a cureall without some very strong (and unavoidable) precautions be required and well spelled out for the user.

I'm not (and wasn't at the time) in favor of sending Chong to jail for selling pipes...but it was predictable...he did what everyone else in that business knew not to do....he marketed those pipes for smoking pot...every other pipe on the market (before the recent decriminalization efforts) was being sold for tobacco use only.

The folks that sell the OA (not the vaporizer) and who put together the MSDS for the product are not doing so so that it can be vaporized (at least in the US)...it lists a melting point, but not a vaporization point. The precautions do briefly mention vapor, but barely...they are more concerned with the dust....they say to "avoid high temperature and ignition sources". The MSDS basically says not to use it in an OA vaporizer.

Some things can be used for other purposes without thinking too much about it (you can hammer in a nail with a hive tool), but taking a strong organic acid and heating it until it sublimates into a vapor is not a small thing...and it's not something that the label of the OA is going to give you good advice about.

Seems like if I'm telling you it is a good idea, if I tell you it works, if I tell you that you can go buy the OA anywhere (but not from me), if I tell you I will sell you the simple and effective tool that will allow you to vaporize OA in your hive and kill the mites....seems like a good time to point out that it isn't legal to use and that there are some important safety precautions to take.

I agree with SNL about how legal treatments are often misused...I've seen it over and over. Sometimes the user "knows better" than the label...but oftentimes they just don't understand what they are supposed to do. I'd like to see users and potential users have the legality and precautions in front of them in big letters so that they are making an informed decision.

deknow


----------



## jmgi

Seem like the predominate mentality then is to use the stuff and ask the questions later. I understand the desperation to try to save bees from the effects of varroa, especially commercial operators who have much more at stake.


----------



## snl

deknow said:


> I agree with SNL about how legal treatments are often misused...I've seen it over and over. Sometimes the user "knows better" than the label...but oftentimes they just don't understand what they are supposed to do. I'd like to see users and potential users have the legality and precautions in front of them in big letters so that they are making an informed decision. deknow


That's fine, but pick another forum.


----------



## WLC

This is from the CHC:

http://www.honeycouncil.ca/documents/29575 Approved E label 04Nov2010.pdf


----------



## snl

jmgi said:


> Seem like the predominate mentality then is to use the stuff and ask the questions later.


That's sad if true, hopefully one does their research


----------



## beekuk

deknow said:


> Jim,
> I also think there are other reasons not to use it (damage to the malphagian tubules was well documented last time I looked...


 The oxalic trickle method is hard on the bees, and causes lots of problems, damage to internal organs, retarded growth, old bees do not tolerate it well, nor nosemic bees, it is mixed with sugar so the bees ingest it, and only one treatment advised in winter..sublimation is much softer on the bees, can be used several times without doing much harm, if fact none that i have seen...compared to the trickle method, which i would never use again.


----------



## deknow

Barry said:


> Surely Dean, that warning on a can of paint isn't what keeps you from inhaling it? I'll bet you wouldn't do that even if the warning wasn't on it.  Hopefully there is a commonsense balance within this issue.
> Mod, feel free to delete if this is off topic in this thread.


...at least if I didn't know any better, it was disclosed clearly to me on the label that not only should I not do it (for some legal reason) but that it will do me harm.
If the label on the OA I purchase doesn't tell me how to heat it to sublimation temps safely how do I know what precautions are necessary?
I'm reminded of Sam Comfort talking about his days working for a beekeeper (by himself in isolation) when the mites started to ravage the bees.
First came the bulk Coumaphos in a plastic tub to be applied with an ice cream scoop...then came the bulk formic acid that burned through his gloves (and I think a finger).

The safety aspects are being ignored by the OA manufacturers (because this use isn't even on their radar and they can't sell it for this purpose anyways), and those promoting its use don't seem to be focused on the safety issues.

deknow


----------



## knute

The failure to follow through wasn't the fault of the ABF- it's the EPA dragging their feet.

I asked the ABF about this a few months ago, and received this reply:

"Some years ago right after Canada approved oxalic for general use, the ABF bought the documents including all the tests and trials they had used and made our own application to the EPA. It was not accepted partly because they would not accept Canadian tests, and partly because the ABF did not plan on selling the pre-dosed product. Normally, a registrant would apply for approval of a proprietary product that would be sold in a form and a dose as registered and labeled. Eventually, the ABF turned all the materials over to Cook and Beals as they had an interest in developing a dosed package. Last time I checked, EPA had not responded. Interestingly enough, during the negotiations to register APIVAR, EPA offered to register oxalic if we would drop our AMITRAZ request. But nothing came of that since the registrant ARYSTA wanted to sell their patented product, and had no ownership of oxalic. The bee industry said to go ahead and register oxalic please because it is an effective tool, but commercial beekeepers could not be dependent on it alone. Anyway, the application is in place, and EPA will respond in their own time."



WLC said:


> Dominic, what's even stranger is that the CHC sent the ABF the required materials for OA registration in the U.S. . But, the ABF never followed through. So, Canada did try to help U.S. beekeepers to use OA for treatments.
> 
> "The Canadian Honey Council has provided the American Beekeeping Federation their registration data packet to expedite the registration of OA in the USA. As a result, the recommended concentration of the OA solution that will appear on the US label will most likely be identical to the Canadian label. "
> 
> (Aliano, 2009)


----------



## snl

Whether or not you agree with the using OA in either a dribble or vaporized form for many of the reasons discussed here and in other forums, there is no doubt that it works. Potential users would do well to research the product and draw their own conclusions. It is another weapon on the war on mites that I'm sure if it was an approved mitecide here in the US as it is in the rest of the world, beekeepers would not hesitate to openly use it to save their hives.


----------



## beekuk

snl said:


> It is another weapon on the war on mites that I'm sure if it was an approved mitecide here in the US as it is in the rest of the world, beekeepers would not hesitate to openly use it to save their hives.


It is an excellent weapon in the war against varroa, and been well researched in Europe for a long time, and i think your doing a good service providing the equipment for beekeepers in the USA Larry.


----------



## JodieToadie

jmgi said:


> Seem like the predominate mentality then is to use the stuff and ask the questions later. I understand the desperation to try to save bees from the effects of varroa, especially commercial operators who have much more at stake.


JMGI
I don't know why I am engaging an uniformed dissident on here, you seem to raise concerns without any facts. Oxalic has to be used at the prescribed dose 3.2% I think I have dosed as high as 3.5%. Perhaps use your internets to go to Wikipedia and look up Oxalic Acid. You will note that it occurs naturally in many vegetables. If I could get my bees to eat their chives... yes chives have 1.48% oxalic acid in them. But my bees won't eat chives. I think the folks on here who claim brood problems and honey problems are not using it as prescribed. 

I can also comment that it is very cheap. Ergo there is no motivation for anyone to jump through the red tape to get it approved. I believe I paid $10 for 2.2lbs of 99.6% oxalic acid. That would be enough to treat 560 single hives. 

I buy mine in Canada from Medivet Pharmaceuticals. I follow the drench method in a syringe and put 5ml between each occupied frame space. Please read the destructions here: http://medivetpharmaceuticals.webs.com/oxalicacid996.htm as well as Wikipedia and come up with a rational argument against it. Take your emotions home if I can't make money I won't be beekeeping.


----------



## Hawkster

snl said:


> That OA is natural in many leafy vegetables. That the rest of the world is using it and in fact many, many, many commercial beekeepers in the US are using it.
> 
> The point of this thread was to ask why your are not using it and some have replied to that simple question. You do not have to use it at all. It is up to you.


Sorry thought I was answering the question. If we complain about imported honey having unapproved antibiotics and chemicals in it making local honey safer it seems disingenuous to turn around and use an unapproved chemical in our hives. Maybe I am over thinking it


----------



## Rdavis183

WLC said:


> This is from the CHC:
> 
> http://www.honeycouncil.ca/documents/29575 Approved E label 04Nov2010.pdf


Yes, oxalic acid can be hazardous if not handled properly. Interestingly enough, the formic acid used in the Mite Away Quick Strips, an approved miticide in the US, is also hazardous: http://www.miteaway.com/uploads/1/4/3/7/14371138/maqs_msds_august_9_2012.pdf


----------



## crofter

My experience using both of them is that it is much easier to stay out of the way of the oxalic acid vapor as it is a visible cloud. The oxalic acid I used was a fairly coarse powder looking very much like table sugar. It is not dusty, in fact after you have the top off a few times it gets to have a rather damp and clumpy handling characteristic. You have to really stick your nose into the container to even smell it at all. Now once it gets up to temperature in the vaporizer and starts to gas off its white cloud, it is a totally different beast, smell wise! Very acrid and the first hint of it gives you the head jerk reaction. You have no reason to be that close to it though as 20 foot electrical leads are not a problem; you don' make the electrical connection at the vaporizer end. After the several minute heat time the evaporator has no more acid or fumes coming from. Zip!

I would dismiss the crack pipe type makeshifts, since they put you right in the muzzle blast. That definitely is a bad news way of vaporizing oxalic acid.


----------



## Oldtimer

knute said:


> "Some years ago right after Canada approved oxalic for general use, the ABF bought the documents including all the tests and trials they had used and made our own application to the EPA. It was not accepted partly because they would not accept Canadian tests, and partly because the ABF did not plan on selling the pre-dosed product. Normally, a registrant would apply for approval of a proprietary product that would be sold in a form and a dose as registered and labeled. Eventually, the ABF turned all the materials over to Cook and Beals as they had an interest in developing a dosed package. Last time I checked, EPA had not responded. Interestingly enough, during the negotiations to register APIVAR, EPA offered to register oxalic if we would drop our AMITRAZ request. But nothing came of that since the registrant ARYSTA wanted to sell their patented product, and had no ownership of oxalic. The bee industry said to go ahead and register oxalic please because it is an effective tool, but commercial beekeepers could not be dependent on it alone. Anyway, the application is in place, and EPA will respond in their own time."


There is a philosophical problem here, that of restricting treatments available, ie, offering to allow OA if Amitraz is disallowed. 

When varroa arrived in my country we had the advantage of seeing what had happened in the rest of the world and the problem of varroa getting resistant to treatment. Our own governing body therefore, off it's own bat and based on research supplied from the interested groups, decided to allow many mite treatments, OA being one of them. (Coumaphos was not). In the discussion document it was noted that problems overseas had a twofold cause. Treatments were often restricted to a very small number of types meaning they were used repeatedly until they didn't work and then another would be introduced which again would be used until it didn't work. This situation encouraged the illegal use of products which means they are not being used by label and also leads to problems such as resistance.

Learning from this, our own governing body made many products available and encouraged beekeepers to use all of them and rotate them. Because of this, resistant mites are almost non existent in my country. The only exception being one area where a group of beekeepers doggedly used Apistan each six months, every time, until just recently they have found resistance. Their own stupidity in my opinion.

If this philosophy were applied, the US EPA ought to be looking at the big picture, ie, enabling the means to kill mites and keep doing so for the longest possible time. The nature of a regulating body, and it's a natural progression, is they can come to see their job as finding reasons to say no to things. Wrong basic premise when dealing with varroa.

There is no sensible reason to say no to OA. If allowed legally, when it is used, something else is not being used. There is more alternation between products, and less likelihood of immunity developing, or even being maintained if it does.

2 cents from the other side of the planet!


----------



## Dominic

WLC said:


> That's the problem here in the U.S., it doesn't come with application instructions/warnings.


The application instructions are very easy to find online.



Rader Sidetrack said:


> This Swiss government site offers considerable "official" information on oxalic acid treatment in hives, including a version in the _English _language:
> 
> http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/imkerei/00316/00329/02081/index.html?lang=en
> 
> One of the documents available includes a study on operator safety when applying oxalic acid to hives, including using the vaporization method. The conclusion of the study ...
> 
> Of course, appropriate safety measures need to be used. Click the link for more details.


Indeed, such as wearing a mask, protecting your eyes, and protecting your skin. Having many years ahead of me, I personally did not hesitate to get all the protective equipment required. Breathing in acid is never good for you, regardless of how natural it may be.


----------



## Honey-4-All

Daniel Y said:


> Can you show one case where someone was harmed vaporizing OA?


Daniel, I personally don't know of any. Here is the basis of my concern: I can tell you that when I went to Apimondia in Vancouver in 99 I ran across a few northern Canadian prairie guys who talked about another beek in their area who was on the oxygen tank as a result of burning his lungs with one of these devices in conjunction with the use of OA. This was long enough into Varroa that I could believe them. It was in the times what I would consider the infancy of OA use for Varroa control. No one in the US was using OA acid at that period of time as the other chems were still "working." I had no reason to disbelieve their claim. My point which the purchaser of this "AD" has deleted in my post was that since the use of this product is known to be unsafe and also unregistered in the US the seller is setting himself up for a big lawsuit if anyone gets hurt as a result. He can delete my posts but I will continue to warn people of the care that needs to be used with this product.


----------



## rhaldridge

Just a heads-up snl, I find your deletion of posts you don't like to be off-putting.

I'd probably end up with a better impression of the product if critical posts were allowed to stand... I wouldn't have that little suspicion that there's something being covered up.

Anyway, that said, it's my opinion that if you're going to treat, OA is probably the least problematic of the successful treatments.


----------



## snl

rhaldridge said:


> Just a heads-up snl, I find your deletion of posts you don't like to be off-putting.
> 
> I'd probably end up with a better impression of the product if critical posts were allowed to stand...


I have no problem at all with critical posts. Using OA in ANY form is very controversial. It is when the attacks become personal, rather than respond and start a "who's bigger" match that takes away from the issue discussed, I just delete.


----------



## Daniel Y

Honey 4 all, Miss application would apply to any product equally so if your rules applied equally no product would be approved. I also suspect that even if this one individual did harm themselves with OA specifically. Which I highly doubt is true. then they would have harmed themselves with the application of any product. And most likely did. Thousands of people get hurt or even killed mis handling automobiles every day.we do not ban them as a result.

Sorry but the entire argument is not to me reasonable or rational. Even if you are correct and people could get hurt. Potential harm is not a reason to prevent something. Not in the context of applying it. now having something added to food they are eating is another issue.

On an issue I have problems with for similar reason. I believe the discussion of making your own equipment should be banned on this group and that it not being recommended be the official statement of this group. Not only is there not enough information on how to safely operate shop equipment. outright dangerous methods are recommended and demonstrated.

So I offer that as how you cannot be responsible for the actions of others. It is not reasonable. That you might hurt yourself in the shop is no reason for me to not tell you how to make something in the shop. I am also not responsible for your knowledge in how to do those things safely.


----------



## snl

Honey-4-All said:


> Daniel, I personally don't know of any. Here is the basis of my concern: I can tell you that when I went to Apimondia in Vancouver in 99 I ran across a few northern Canadian prairie guys who talked about another beek in their area who was on the oxygen tank as a result of burning his lungs with one of these devices in conjunction with the use of OA. This was long enough into Varroa that I could believe them. It was in the times what I would consider the infancy of OA use for Varroa control. No one in the US was using OA acid at that period of time as the other chems were still "working." I had no reason to disbelieve their claim. My point which the purchaser of this "AD" has deleted in my post was that since the use of this product is known to be unsafe and also unregistered in the US the seller is setting himself up for a big lawsuit if anyone gets hurt as a result. He can delete my posts but I will continue to warn people of the care that needs to be used with this product.


Honey-4-All....
It's one thing to make your point about safety, it is a issue we all can agree on. You must use adequate protection when using this product along with many, many other products. I've said that over and over and it's mentioned on my website and also in the video that demonstrates its use. 

Surely the individual you don't know but have heard about was NOT wearing protection otherwise he would not have been injured. However in this post and your previous post (deleted), you overstep the courtesy line on warnings and make it personal.

I'm sure your mother taught you better than that...


----------



## Honey-4-All

I thoroughly agree with snl and daniel that oa kills mites well if not very well. It can also be said to be one of the safest miticides from a human food chain perspective that any of us can use on bees. I also agree that to to use anything ( saws. airplanes or just plain old pencils) in an unsafe manner it is unwise and imprudent. 

My warning to SNL which he deleted ( edited) was that I think he is opening a wide gap in his legal defense if someone sues him after that person uses his product in an illegal manner ( which it is in the US) which he advocates quite clearly in his sales material as well as on beesource which he is also using as a sales lead.

Is it possible the EPA is withholding registration because of human safety issues?Yes. Is that likely? .... I doubt it at this point although its a plausible argument. I don't know....

Right now there is no "label" on how to apply this product in a safe and legal manner. (Although many are doing it) To advocate doing so off label while selling his associated equipment under a clear pretense that his products sale is sold specifically to facilitate an illegal application is just plain unwise from a business standpoint. If someone serves a summons to the responsible person doing these sales I sure hope they have a better defense than I could come up with.


----------



## snl

Honey-4-All said:


> Right now there is no "label" on how to apply this product in a safe and legal manner.


Not sure exactly what you mean by "label." There are instructions that come with every vaporizer as to how to apply this product in a safe manner. The legality of using it I leave to each beekeeper. The many commercial beekeepers using it also have the same dilemma. Treat with an effective, cheap, safe miticide or risk losing your bees. 

The choice is ultimately..............yours.


----------



## Michael Bush

>why are YOU not using it?

Are you sure you want to ask this question?

o I don't want to kill the microbes with the dramitic shift in pH (more than 8,000 kinds of microbs)
o I don't want to kill all the other benign fauna in the hive (160 kinds of mites, many insects etc.)
o I don't have a Varroa problem to solve

What is oxalic labeled for as a pesticide? I wasn't aware of any label. That is not at all helpful as that does actually make it "off label" use for Varroa. If there was no product with it labeled as a pesticide one could make the argument that you are not violating the label since there isn't one...

>Thus, based on the presented data, a commercial apiarist could use oxalic acid treatments during the whole year 40 hours a week without damaging his health.

I have no doubt they COULD. The question is, will they. A wise person wouldn't inhale it more than once... but there are some foolish people...

This IR-4 stuff is interesting. I was not aware of an alternate path to certification. I'm glad to see Bt on the list as well...


----------



## knute

I hadn't heard of IR-4 until you mentioned it. Interesting!

http://ir4.rutgers.edu/Biopesticides/Beeregistrations.pdf

There's a pending application for oxalic acid...


----------



## snl

From Michael Bush.. Why not use Oxalic Acid.
Are you sure you want to ask this question?
Answer: Of course, everyone needs as much information as possible to make an informed decision. 

I don't have a Varroa problem to solve.
Answer: You are indeed fortunate but in the minority. Many of us do have a varroa problem and need assistance in many forms to combat it. OA is just part of the arsenal, albeit a growing major player in that arsenal. 
A wise person wouldn't inhale it more than once... but there are some foolish people...
Answer: No comment.......
I don't want to kill the microbes with the dramitic shift in pH (more than 8,000 kinds of microbs)
 I don't want to kill all the other benign fauna in the hive (160 kinds of mites, many insects etc.)
Answer: None of us want to kill anything beneficial in the hive given the choice.... a choice we don't always have if we wish to save the hive. It is the beekeepers choice to choose the lesser of many evils. Many, many here in the US and worldwide have chosen OA.


----------



## Michael Bush

I would still like to know what pest is oxalic labeled for as a pesticide? If it is, that changes the legal status as "the label is the law" comes into effect. I was hoping they wouldn't do that. I'm actually afraid they may label it for use dribbling and then vaporization would be off label. I hate to see that as I think vaporization is the lesser of the two evils...


----------



## Daniel Y

Why would you fear the worst? Seriously, do you have any actual reason to think they would approve one over the other? Why not both?

You have given me an idea on something to follow up on. Not so much what OA is approved for. But what is approved to dealing with mites? And what is in it.


----------



## beekuk

Michael Bush said:


> o I don't want to kill the microbes with the dramitic shift in pH (more than 8,000 kinds of microbs)


 Michael, what is the dramatic shift of pH within a hive from normal, caused by a sublimation treatment of oxalic acid, and what microbes are killed, would be interesting to know, do you know of a research paper that can be viewed, specifically to do with sublimating oxalic, especially as oxalic is a natural ingrediant of honey and added to by the bees, and with sublimation they are not likely to be ingesting it, unlike the trickle method where they certainly do.


----------



## knute

Michael Bush said:


> I would still like to know what pest is oxalic labeled for as a pesticide? If it is, that changes the legal status as "the label is the law" comes into effect. I was hoping they wouldn't do that. I'm actually afraid they may label it for use dribbling and then vaporization would be off label. I hate to see that as I think vaporization is the lesser of the two evils...


There are no currently EPA approved pesticides containing oxalic acid as an active ingredient, although there apparently are pesticides that include oxalic acid as an "inert ingredient" to chelate calcium. There used to be a pesticide that contained oxalic acid as an active ingredient, but the EPA registration for it was cancelled in 1994 for non-payment. See: www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/oxalicacid.pdf


----------



## Michael Bush

>Michael, what is the dramatic shift of pH within a hive from normal, caused by a sublimation treatment of oxalic acid, and what microbes are killed

Any shift in pH changes what microbes live and what microbes die, but sublimating it pretty much exposes all surfaces to a very low pH (high acidity). Formic, which is similar in pH to oxalic, is often used to sterilize surfaces in a lab. I'm concerned about the entire balace of the ecology of the colony, not just one microbe or another. Granted, dribbling is probably worse as it is in syrup and probably gets, not only in the gut of the bee (where many of the beneficial microbes reside) but into the bee bread (where the microbes are essential to the fermentation of pollen to make bee bread). It's possible that sublimation just kills it on the surface and not in the bee bread itself. Very few studies have been done on microbes at all. Serious interest in them is recent. So I don't know of any that are looking at the effects of organic acid treatments on them.

>would be interesting to know, do you know of a research paper that can be viewed, specifically to do with sublimating oxalic, especially as oxalic is a natural ingrediant of honey and added to by the bees, and with sublimation they are not likely to be ingesting it, unlike the trickle method where they certainly do. 

Certainly it is naturally occuring in many foods, but not at the concentrations that the fumes are in vaporizing it in the hive. That, of course, is why it's effective at killing mites. Changing pH is even more effective at killing microbes.


----------



## Daniel Y

I believe it is more accurate to say that changing Ph changes what microbes are present. I also have a problem with that being presented like it is a bad thing. An unhealthy hive indicates it has unhealthy microbes just as a healthy hive would indicate it has healthy microbes. I start with that as may basic starting line. so if you have a hive in need of treating. I simply assume and will not debate that the microbes need to be destroyed. The evidence convinces me otherwise. and the issue is settled for me.

I can pile up a bunch of leaves. i doing so I have in fact altered many thing including Ph to a degree that microbes will be both increased and destroyed. the net results will lbe that the leaves compost. Now is this good or bad. If all it destroys is the leaves it si good in my opinion. if that same process spreads to the bottom boards of my hives is is bad. same microbial action. two completely different opinons about it. If your hive is sick it has the wrong microbes. 

Now what if your hive is well and you treat it anyway. did you just kill the right microbes? Maybe, maybe not. I find in actually practice healthy hives that are not treated will not remain healthy. the microbes cannot hold their own anyway. destroying them in inconsequential. they are inadequate in the first place. They will be overran with unhealthy microbes eventually so the destruction is only a matter of it being natural or intentional.

Now if you have hives that never get unhealthy it is another issue. You have healthy microbes that are holding their own and messing with that becomes a far more serious issue. I do not see many beekeepers having to face that problem.


----------



## snl

_*From Michael Bush: *__*Are you sure you want to ask this question?*_

Answer: I believe Michael's response was meant to mean, if I ask the question, I might not like the answer. That's not been the case at all. The responses are great and informative.
Judging from the increase in sales on OxaVap.com the last couple of days, many beekeepers have chosen OAV as a weapon against mites.


----------



## BeeGhost

I used OAV for the first time last winter and after getting one whiff of the stuff being vaporized, I went and got a mask. Could I have worn the mask off the get go, sure, but I had to see just how bad it really was!! I didn't stand in the cloud, but close enough to get that eye opening dose...........wont happen again!! I do wear eye protection with sunglasses, I wear a mask, and I wear rubber gloves. I keep an eye on the wind direction and I run a 15' cord with the on/off toggle switch within feet of the battery. Its a simple process and although it does take time, to me its time spent outdoors at the beeyard which is therapeutic to me. And I am not running thousands of hives!!!


----------



## snl

BeeGhost said:


> after getting one whiff of the stuff being vaporized, I went and got a mask. Could I have worn the mask off the get go, sure, but I had to see just how bad it really was!! I didn't stand in the cloud, but close enough to get that eye opening dose...........wont happen again!!


As Michael Bush wrote: "A wise person wouldn't inhale it more than once...."


----------



## BeeGhost

snl said:


> As Michael Bush wrote: "A wise person wouldn't inhale it more than once...."


No doubt, I knew it wouldn't kill me unless I put it in a crack pipe and smoked it! But had to see what it was like! As for precautions, everything these days is bad for you, just look at MSDS sheets, they even have one for water!

Even Hopguard which is supposed to be a natural miticide can be fatal to dogs. And you are suppose to wear PPE while applying it. 

I like OAV because its an economical way to kill mites, and it works.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I used OAV for the first time last winter and after getting one whiff of the stuff being vaporized, I went and got a mask.

When I was experimenting with it, I always lit a smoker so I can see which way the wind is drifting and if it's shifting and then stand up wind. I don't really see the need for the mask IF you are a good distance off and up wind.

>I believe it is more accurate to say that changing Ph changes what microbes are present. I also have a problem with that being presented like it is a bad thing.

Maybe, but this is a substance that is commonly used as a disinfectant. At high concentrations it kills all the microbes. At lower concentrations it would shift WHICH microbes flourish and which die. At the concentrations it takes to kill mites, it is a disinfectant.


----------



## Daniel Y

Then we could go into the distinction of a disinfecting, sanitizing and sterilizing. They are not the same thing. So you claim that OA at the concentrations is it applied to the hive Disinfects. Does it? And if it does what does that mean. Because it is not what most people would think. you do not remove or necessarily even kill organisms with disinfectant. Infection is caused by the transferring of an organism. say a virus from one person to another. or one animal to another. disinfecting simply removes this ability of transference.

You then bring up the issue of strength. Strength in comparison to what as well as strength resulting in what. Let's think about OA in comparison to something like Bleach. now bleach sanitizes. Sanitizing is the killing of the microbes.

Finally is the issue of does it matter. Again a sick hive indicates the wrong micro flora already exists. destruction of it is in fact desired. The imbalanced micro flora is as likely a result of the wood you used to make the hive as it is the application of any treatment. It is more likely to be a result of the chemicals the bees introduce to the hive via foraging than anything else. OA is in fact added to the hive by the bees themselves. so how do you know that using OA as a treatment is not putting the hive back in balance? That the bees get healthier would be an evidence that it does.

In all it comes down to this. it is an argument that says. don't kill the mites that we know will kill your bees. Because it might cause harm to other organisms. but we cannot even be sure those other organisms even matter. and of course the health of the hive indicates they could very will be harmful. What I care about is killing the mites killing my bees. and I do not complicate it much beyond that. if I find a treatment causes a poor reaction in my bees. I will then seriously consider the use of it. but I find the health of my bees improves after treatment. I do not need to investigate what is not happening. This thinking appears more to me like paranoia. Oh my your bees are better. you might be doing very bad things. 

Okay I agree it may be doing bad things. but my bad thing is far better than the mites. The bees can live with my damage.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Then we could go into the distinction of a disinfecting, sanitizing and sterilizing. They are not the same thing.

Yes, they are exactly the same thing with the exception that "sterilizing" is generally used to be more complete.

> So you claim that OA at the concentrations is it applied to the hive Disinfects. Does it?

It is used as a disinfectant routinely in many applications. A strong vapor of it will disinfect whatever that vapor comes into contac with, yes.

> And if it does what does that mean. Because it is not what most people would think. you do not remove or necessarily even kill organisms with disinfectant.

Of course you do. That is precisely what a disinfectant does.

> Infection is caused by the transferring of an organism. say a virus from one person to another. or one animal to another. disinfecting simply removes this ability of transference.

Actually infection is caused by a imbalance in the host organism that allows the pathogen an environment where it can flourish. The term "disinfectant" is not very accurate, but it is commonly used to refer to things that kill the germs on surfaces.

>You then bring up the issue of strength. Strength in comparison to what as well as strength resulting in what.

It's a matter of concentration that makes an acid into a disinfectant/sanatizer/sterilizer.

>Let's think about OA in comparison to something like Bleach. now bleach sanitizes. Sanitizing is the killing of the microbes.

Which is precisely what OA does and what it is commonly used for.

>Finally is the issue of does it matter. Again a sick hive indicates the wrong micro flora already exists. 

Perhaps. Or perhaps it indicates other issues, such as malnutrition, external parasites, attacks by other bees, ants etc.

>destruction of it is in fact desired.

That is the general "germ theory of disease" which finally, in recent times, is being refuted by new research. In fact, most of our human diseases are caused by our killing off the microbes that should be living in our own bodies.

> The imbalanced micro flora is as likely a result of the wood you used to make the hive as it is the application of any treatment. 

It's more likely due to antibiotics or simply shifting the pH either with treatments or with sugar syrup.

>It is more likely to be a result of the chemicals the bees introduce to the hive via foraging than anything else.

All of the studies I've seen on chemicals in the hive reveal that most of the chemicals in the hive are put there by beekeepers.

> OA is in fact added to the hive by the bees themselves. 

At extermely low amounts comapred to treating with it, but yes, plants produce it, honey often has very low amounts of several organic acids, including OA along with formic, malic, acetic etc.

>so how do you know that using OA as a treatment is not putting the hive back in balance?

An acid applied at full strength will not put microbes back in balance. To do that a slight shift in pH might do the trick, if it was in the right direction, but killing off all the microbes wholesale will not.

> That the bees get healthier would be an evidence that it does.

A lot of things can be done in the short run that don't pay off in the long run, but in general, healthier bees would be a good indication.

>In all it comes down to this. it is an argument that says. don't kill the mites that we know will kill your bees.

But the mites do not kill my bees.

>Because it might cause harm to other organisms.

That we know the bees require to live.

> but we cannot even be sure those other organisms even matter.

Yes, we can. There are plenty of studies that the fermentation of bee bread is essential to the survival of the bees. There are plenty of studies that show that the bacteria in the gut of the bee protects them from EFB, AFB, Nosema and Chalkbrood:

http://www.beeuntoothers.com/index.php/beekeeping/gilliam-archives
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0033188

> and of course the health of the hive indicates they could very will be harmful.

Of the 8,000+ organisms that live in a bee colony, we have identified only a handful that are harmful. Of bacteria, only two: Melissococcus pluton (EHB) and Paenbacillus larvae. Of fungus, only five: Ascosphaera apis (chalkbrood), Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus fumigatus (stonebrood), Nosema apis, Nosema ceranae. Of viruses 12: Chronic Paralysis Virus (CPV), Acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV), Iraeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV), Kasmir bee virus (KBV), Black queen cell virus (BQCV), Cloudy wing virus (CWV), Sacbrood virus (SBV), Deformed wing virus (DWV), Kakugo virus (KV), Vorroa destructor virus 1, Invertebrate iridescent virus type 6 (IIV-6), Tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV)

So of the microbes we know of (8,000+) there are 19 that are pathogens that we know of. So the other 8,000 or so are either benign, in which case they are indirectly beneficial by crowding out pathogens, or they are directly beneficial such as the ones in the gut of the bee that form a biofilm to protect them, or the ones that are used to ferment pollen into bee bread. I suspect we will finally discover CCD was of our own making because we did not take into account the importance of these microorganisms.


----------



## David LaFerney

"That is the general "germ theory of disease" which finally, in recent times, is being refuted by new research. In fact, most of our human diseases are caused by our killing off the microbes that should be living in our own bodies."

Most of our human diseases? Maybe. Let's say that is true. Before we had antibiotics, processed food, or anything we enjoy today there were still infections diseases. Plague, smallpox, black death, old school VDs, influenza, cholera, etc. 

Nowadays we still have plenty of diseases - new diseases of our own making like MERSA even - but despite the negative effects of modern medicine we live about twice as long, and most babies (and mothers) don't die in childbirth. And personally I've never known of anyone who died of any of those horrible diseases I mentioned. We disparage medicine, and technology awfully easily - but it looks to me like we are fortunate to have it. Maybe we just need to learn to use it more wisely.


----------



## snl

Michael Bush said:


> In fact, most of our human diseases are caused by our killing off the microbes that should be living in our own bodies.


Are you sure you really want to say that? What about the millions and millions of people who died prior to antitbiotics..


----------



## crofter

I think it would take some getting used to for people to start going without soap, deodorant, foot powder and other PH altering substances. Maybe we would become more disease free eventually though!


----------



## jmgi

Daniel Y said:


> In all it comes down to this. it is an argument that says. don't kill the mites that we know will kill your bees. Because it might cause harm to other organisms. but we cannot even be sure those other organisms even matter. and of course the health of the hive indicates they could very will be harmful. What I care about is killing the mites killing my bees. and I do not complicate it much beyond that. if I find a treatment causes a poor reaction in my bees. I will then seriously consider the use of it. but I find the health of my bees improves after treatment. I do not need to investigate what is not happening. This thinking appears more to me like paranoia. Oh my your bees are better. you might be doing very bad things.


I find your view on mite control to be very reckless and irresponsible. This is typical of how many problems are solved today, "let's use this method because it seems to help fix the current issue we are having, at least it looks like it's working, and no thought is given to the repercussions down the road of using the method, but who cares, we have accomplished our immediate goal." I think Mike Bush did a good job of answering many of your statements, he obviously has much more patience than I.


----------



## Michael Bush

>>In fact, most of our human diseases are caused by our killing off the microbes that should be living in our own bodies.

>Are you sure you really want to say that?

I try to never say anything without some thought. Yes.

>What about the millions and millions of people who died prior to antitbiotics.. 

That was then. This is now. Now we have a whole different problem.


----------



## snl

Michael Bush said:


> >>In fact, most of our human diseases are caused by our killing off the microbes that should be living in our own bodies.
> That was then. This is now. Now we have a whole different problem.


What about the benefits of killing off bad microbes which we've enjoyed (that no doubt kill off some good ones at the same time). Our life now is much better for the use of them. It seems (no, it is) that the benefits outweigh the negatives.... Why can't the same be said for bees?


----------



## Michael Bush

>What about the benefits of killing off bad microbes which we've enjoyed (that no doubt kill off some good ones at the same time). Our life now is much better for the use of them.

Perhaps. If we had used antiboiotics when they were appropriate (life threatening problems) then our life might have been improved. As it is we've invented new super bugs.

>It seems (no, it is) that the benefits outweigh the negatives.... Why can't the same be said for bees? 

We save people at all costs, short and long term. Because we are people. Because we value human life beyond what people can produce and beyond the genetics they can contribute. It has been good to us as individuals, and bad for us as a race, but it's what we do because of how we view human life. 

Bees are not people. If you value bees as you do people, then you will have to spend your winters catching the ones the fall in the snow and warming them up and putting them back in the hive. Bees are important for what they do, and what they contribute to the ecology and what they contribute genetically to the future of our world. Propping up genetically inferior bees is bad for bees as a race and bad for the world.


----------



## crofter

The time frame and scale in which you examine a problem/solution has a big influence on what choices will be made. What might be good for humanity in a thousand year period cannot be sold to people on a person to person or human scale based on their experience time frame. The same could be said about the creatures we call bees: Very wide brush!

Michael might be quite correct that we "now have a whole different problem"; it appears that we are *too* healthy and reproductive for our own long term good!

Very difficult to decide on what might be the best eventual solution unless human values are removed from the equation.


----------



## beekuk

The quantity of oxalic used in sublimation treatments would not kill off all the pathogens/microflora in a beehive,and it breaks down very fast, may kill some, good and bad, if it killed off Nosema spores,AFB, EFB bacteria, chalkbrood etc by sublimating one gram of oxalic, i would like it even more.


----------



## Michael Bush

>The quantity of oxalic used in sublimation treatments would not kill off all the pathogens/microflora in a beehive

No. Only what it comes in contact with.


----------



## beekuk

Michael Bush said:


> All of the studies I've seen on chemicals in the hive reveal that most of the chemicals in the hive are put there by beekeepers.


Agreed, but far greater numbers of pesticides and fungicides are added by the bees.

The most frequently found residues were from fluvalinate and coumaphos, followed in order by chlorpyrifos, chlorothalonil, amitraz, pendimethalin, endosulfan, fenpropathrin, esfenvalerate and atrazine. These top ten comprise three in-hive miticides and five insecticidal, one fungicidal and one herbicidal crop protection agents (Table 4). In pollen, unprecedented levels (up to 99 ppm) of chlorothalonil were found, along with ppm levels of aldicarb, captan, carbaryl, myclobutanil, pendimethalin and the Varroa miticides (Tables 2, 4). Near ppm levels of imidacloprid, boscalid and chlorpyrifos were also noted in pollen, with lesser but substantial amounts of potentially synergistic fungicides such as fenbuconazole, cyprodinil and propiconazole. Almost all wax samples (98%) were contaminated with fluvalinate and coumaphos up to 204 and 94 ppm, respectively, along with lower amounts and frequency of amitraz degradates and chlorothalonil. Near ppm levels of chlorpyrifos, aldicarb, deltamethrin, iprodione and methoxyfenozide were also found in comb wax 



High levels of fluvalinate and coumaphos are co-occuring with lower but significant levels of 98 other insecticides, fungicides and herbicides in pollen. Most noteworthy were the very high levels of the fungicide chlorothalonil in pollen and wax (Tables 1, 2, 4) as well as ppm levels of the insecticides aldicarb, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos and imidacloprid, fungicides boscalid, captan and myclobutanil, and herbicide pendimethalin. With an average of 7 pesticides in a pollen sample, the potential for multiple pesticide interactions affecting bee health seems likely. Ten pesticides were found in pollen at greater than one tenth the bee LD50 level indicating that sublethal effects of these toxicants alone are highly likely. European researchers have noted fewer and usually lower levels of pesticides in pollen samples, although high detections of particularly carbamates and pyrethroids have been reported

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009754


----------



## beekuk

Michael Bush said:


> No. Only what it comes in contact with.



Which with sublimation, at least, would not generally be the bees guts or pollen/ honey etc, only things on the surface, and for a short duration, as opposed to trickle which the bees consume, and because of the syrup content would end up mixed with both pollen and honey to some extent.

I would like to see some actual peer reviewed research into what difference/damage one gram of sublimated oxalic makes within a beehive to the microflora.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Which with sublimation, at least, would not generally be the bees guts or pollen/ honey etc, only things on the surface, and for a short duration, as opposed to trickle which the bees consume, and because of the syrup content would end up mixed with both pollen and honey to some extent.

Agreed. It will in general, though, lower the pH of everything in the hive becaue of the residue, but certainly less than trickling will. Trickling also has the downside of damaging the malpighian tubules.

>Agreed, but far greater numbers of pesticides and fungicides are added by the bees.

The large amounts are mostly things added by the beekeeper. The lower amounts are things of greater number as the treatments (approved and unapproved) used by beekeepers is a small number.

The world would be a much healthier place if we weren't so intent on killing everything... weeds, insects, fungus...


----------



## snl

Michael Bush said:


> The world would be a much healthier place if we weren't so intent on killing everything... weeds, insects, fungus...


Killing everything ........sure, that' crazy.. Obliterating other things, aids, small pox, malaria, mites.......those need killing... Michael we all know you don't have mites, but you are indeed among the minority worldwide. Do you think your could replicate your success worldwide? If you had to treat to save your bees, what would you use?


----------



## Michael Bush

>we all know you don't have mites

But I do have mites. Mites are endemic.

>but you are indeed among the minority worldwide. 

I don't think I am a minority of people doing natural beekeeping with natural comb and succeeding against mites. I may be a minority of beekeepers in general.

>Do you think your could replicate your success worldwide?

I only have bees in my climate, and certainly all beekeeping is local, but there are people all over the world doing treatment free successfully.

>If you had to treat to save your bees, what would you use? 

What if there were no rhetorical questions?

I was desperate enough to treat at one time and lost my bees anyway. Treating was not an improvement. It certainly was not a solution. I don't have to treat.


----------



## snl

Michael Bush said:


> >If you had to treat to save your bees, what would you use?
> 
> What if there were no rhetorical questions?
> 
> I was desperate enough to treat at one time and lost my bees anyway. Treating was not an improvement. It certainly was not a solution. I don't have to treat.


Michael, that's not an answer that inquiring minds want to hear (at least mine anyway). I'm not trying to be contrary, but I am putting you on the spot because I'd really like to know. If you had no other recourse to save your bees from mites other than to treat, what would you use?


----------



## Daniel Y

I see a very difficult question being asked here. And this is why I see it difficult. The majority assume that treatment is an answer. they also assuem that others see treatment as an answer. But what if you you do not? As Michael said. he has tried it and it did not help. So even if worse came to worse and he was loosing all his bees. Why would he then resort to something he believes and has experienced does not help?

I will ask a different queston of you Michael. If you found your bees suddenly collapsing. Do you have any other courses of action you would take to prevent it? I also realize that question is difficult given you cannot address a hypothetical ailment. So the real question is, Do you believe you are doing the best you can in every way. and if it fails you are up against creating some entirely new solutions?


----------



## Michael Bush

>If you had no other recourse to save your bees from mites other than to treat, what would you use? 

There is no logical point in answering a hypothetical question. It is merely hypothetical.

>I will ask a different queston of you Michael. If you found your bees suddenly collapsing. Do you have any other courses of action you would take to prevent it? 

Hypothetical again for the most part. They were collapsing, and I did try treating and I decided it was worse than not treating and treating was not the solution to the problem.


----------



## jmgi

I don't think Mike Bush is being elusive in not giving the answer to the hypothetical question, I just think he feels confident that what he is currently doing is "the" answer to his previous mite problems, and that unless mites somehow eventually evolve to the extent that they can reproduce much better in small cells, there will be no need to re-evaluate using a treatment. I guess you can say that he intends on crossing that bridge when and if he comes to it.


----------



## snl

jmgi said:


> I don't think Mike Bush is being elusive in not giving the answer to the hypothetical question ... I guess you can say that he intends on crossing that bridge when and if he comes to it.


We all answer hypothetical questions.....


----------



## jmgi

snl, only thing I can say (not being MB) is that if I did not have mite losses for 10 years or so by using a strategy that is not a treatment, and prior to that had mite losses with and without treatments, I would put some degree of faith in what I was currently doing. To have an answer prepared ahead of time, in case anyone asks what I would do if what I was currently doing didn't work anymore, is not something that I would spend much time thinking about beforehand. JMO.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

snl said:


> We all answer hypothetical questions.....



In that case, how about answering one for me? Mr. Bush has a method that works for him. You've got a method that works for you. Why are you so intent on badgering Michael Bush about his methods when he doesn't badger you about yours?

I'm not TF but I am comfortable enough with the success of my own methods that I don't need to validate them by tearing into the TF folks about theirs.

JMO

Rusty


----------



## WLC

snl said:


> We all answer hypothetical questions.....


Whatever MannLake sells. Like MAQIIs. Is Hopguard legal in NY state?

But, I bought resistant bees so I don't have to mess with chemicals.


----------



## snl

Rusty Hills Farm said:


> You've got a method that works for you. Why are you so intent on badgering Michael Bush about his methods when he doesn't badger you about yours?


I'm not badgering MB. It's a legitimate question that he has chosen not to answer. That's fine.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

No, It's not a legitimate question. It's a deliberately provocative one. And, yes, you are badgering. He's just too polite to say so. I'm not. Personally I think you need to rethink this particular sales tactic. It's not the best way to win new customers. It sure isn't winning me.

JMO

Rusty


----------



## deknow

The above photo is not from a peer reviewed study, but something we did on our kitchen table (I helped my nephew replicate it for a school project and the results were the same).

The photo is the data. Each jar has an equal amount of water and sugar and is kept at the same temperature (temp regulated water bath).
The jar on the left was the control, the next one had 1 drop of FA, the next 3 drops, 5 drops....etc. The FA we got from a local beekeeper and was at the strength it was supposed to be used at.

After the sugar was dissolved, the FA added, and the temps stabilized and equal, an equal amount of bread yeast was put into each jar, and a glove fitted around the rim to measure the gas produced from the yeast fermenting.

A picture is worth a thousand words.
http://www.beeuntoothers.com/NoBeeIsAnIsland.pdf


----------



## deknow

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...-for-European-Foulbrood&p=1049683#post1049683

Perhaps I'm more attuned to this stuff than most (having the task of writing a beginning beekeeping book from scratch makes you think of all the people with a book in one hand and a package in another who never mastered the art of setting the clock on their stove), but when giving any kind of advice, one has to think of _all_ the people that might try to follow that advice.
I'd bet that 90% (or more) of beekeepers that cite 'checkerboarding' as a swarm prevention technique think that it refers to manipulation in the brood nest. The technique that Walt has championed (for better or for worse) is decidely different than what beekeepers 'try' when they dismiss 'checkerboarding' (I'm not referring the MP here, but I know beekeepers of equal caliber who clearly don't understand the concept, and dismiss it for the wrong reasons).
Anyone that really wants ideas, thoughts, concepts, techniques, caveats, warnings, etc. to be understood must take some care in making sure they are being understood.
I've not seen such care here, or on 'the vendors website'. Seems a shame that being understood by ones customers doesn't seem to be as much a priority as securing the customers.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes giving people the whole story is important. And in the spirit of that I would point out that this thread is about the vendors product, OA. The experiment shown as an example in post #113 did not use OA, I feel this should have been made clearer. We want people to understand, rather than be confused.

I am sure there would be any number of common household products could have been added to the mix to kill the yeast also. Table salt, for example.


----------



## snl

Oldtimer said:


> The experiment shown as an example in post #133 did not use OA, I feel this should have been made clearer. We want people to understand, rather than be confused.


I'm confused. OT there are only 115 posts here at the time you posted. Kill yeast???


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> The experiment shown as an example in post #133 did not use OA, I feel this should have been made clearer. We want people to understand, rather than be confused.


Apologies if anyone was confused...it was not my intention to mislead. I was only intending to be as brief as possible while being as descriptive as possible. FA means 'formic acid', it does not mean 'oxalic acid'.
Notice that even 3 drops noticeably decreases the amount of fermentation. I can't testify that this was at 65% dilution, but the beekeeper that supplied it had it at usable concentration from the instructions he had. Note that a single MiteAwayII pad (discontiuned) had about 51 teaspoons of 65% formic...I'm talking about 3 drops.
I don't, however, see how anyone could characterize doing this demonstration, doing it well, documenting it well, presenting it well and completely and posting about it in this thread (it's hardly the first mention of FA in the thread) as anything other than trying to be as clear as possible. 

I guess I don't know what isn't clear about FA not being oxalic acid...but I'm always looking to improve my writing wrt people understanding...did anyone actually misunderstand that this was formic acid?

deknow


----------



## deknow

snl said:


> Kill yeast???


Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 05:44:12 GMT
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
<[email protected]>


we see where we got things wrong in "No Bee Is An Island". it isn't that the 
pollen grain needs to ferment in order to just "pop open"...it is the 
progression of many fermentation processes, each setting the stage for the next, that 
produces necessary substances for the other microbes, and for the bees. think of the 
fermentation of pollen as a tree rotting in the forest...there is a progression of bugs 
living underneath it, a few tunneling inside, molds and fungi, sow bugs, centipedes.....

the exact makeup of this culture of microorganisms is a heritable thing...perhaps more so 
than the genetics of the bees, and perhaps more important. antibiotics, pesticides, and 
other treatments that disrupt the microbial balance (which seems to include sugar as a 
winter feed) will, over time, erode the diversity and functionality of this culture.

the key (regardless of cell size) is not so much to breed a varroa (or nosema) resistant 
bee, but to allow the bees to build up their microbial culture without interference. 
keeping the bees alive long enough for this to happen is the trick....and perhaps that's 
what sc has to offer...perhaps it's a red herring, but we are both convinced that the 
microbes are the key. we think that sc might well give a head start (our experience 
suggests this).

it may be that in some areas, some of the essential microbes have become extinct and/or 
rare due to the impacts of varroa, tracheal mite, and beekeeper practices...perhaps this 
points to why some have success and other failure. it's more than likely that these 
microbial cultures have some things in common, and some are localized.


----------



## Oldtimer

snl said:


> I'm confused. OT there are only 115 posts here at the time you posted. Kill yeast???


Oh my mistake, edited the post it should read post #113. The post with an experiment some may assume was done using OA. But it wasn't.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> Note that a single MiteAwayII pad (discontiuned) had about 51 teaspoons of 65% formic..


Note also that 51 teaspoons of 65% formic is not 1 teaspoon of oxalic. The amount of oxalic typically used to vaporise a hive. Formic is not oxalic.

The thread is about oxalic. Why confuse the issue?


----------



## Oldtimer

I am reminded of the story from back in the days of alchohol prohibition. A guy was speaking to a crowd from a platform about the evils of drink. To demonstrate, he gets a jar of live wiggly worms and holds it out for the audience to see. Then he gets a bottle of whiskey and tips it over the worms. After a short pause, he holds the jar up and the audience can see the worms are floating and dead.

"What does that teach you?" he asks. A bum in the audience yells out "if you've got worms, drink whiskey".

Likewise, putting 65% FA into a small jar of liquid containing yeast, does not equate to vaporising one gram of the different product oxalic, into a beehive. A more honest experiment would be to swab a beehive prior to treatment. Then vaporise a gram of oxalic into the hive. Leave perhaps a month for all traces of oxalic to be gone, and do another swab.


----------



## beekuk

Oldtimer said:


> A more honest experiment would be to swab a beehive prior to treatment. Then vaporise a gram of oxalic into the hive. Leave perhaps a month for all traces of oxalic to be gone, and do another swab.


Yes it would be.
Also the formic talked about on this thread is nothing like OA sublimation, formic is a vapour, a gas, with a very fine molecule size which can even permeate brood cell capping to kill mites, plus the bees to kill tracheal mites, and no doubt other things, 1 gram of OA when sublimated turns quickly back into a crystal, some of it even before it leaves the apparatus, and just leaves a surface coating on whatever it lands on...and soon breaks down or is removed by the bees.


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> A more honest experiment would be to swab a beehive prior to treatment. Then vaporise a gram of oxalic into the hive. Leave perhaps a month for all traces of oxalic to be gone, and do another swab.


I really have a hard time believing (in this thread especially) that by posting about and/or performing the experiment we performed can be seen in any way as 'dishonest'. I haven't withheld anything, nor have I tried to mislead anyone....I haven't deleted posts and I'm not trying to sell a product (one will note that my sig file has never been an advertisement for anything).

Could this only be 'honest' if it were done (as suggested above) with 6 active bee hives and 12 (or more) assays for microflora (Iwould expect that to cost hundreds per sample)? We did this with what we had around and documented it well and accurately. We bought gloves and we bought yeast.

deknow


----------



## jmgi

beekuk said:


> ...and just leaves a surface coating on whatever it lands on...and soon breaks down or is removed by the bees.


Do you know this for a fact, or is this more conjecture? Where are the studies and scientific evidence to prove this, just asking?


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh apologies Deknow, no attempt to impune your honesty intended.

I just added clarity, as I felt that to a casual reader (and there are lots of casual readers), it could have slipped their observation that oxalic acid was not used in the experiment, and as the context of the thread is oxalic acid they may have assumed that. I also have doubts about the value of ex vivo experiments (referring in this case, to the hive as an organism in itself). They have their uses but can also be set up to demonstrate pretty much anything.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> Could this only be 'honest' if it were done (as suggested above) with 6 active bee hives and 12 (or more) assays for microflora (Iwould expect that to cost hundreds per sample)? We did this with what we had around and documented it well and accurately. We bought gloves and we bought yeast.
> 
> deknow


Yes that would be honest, didn't know you did this. How much oxalic did you use per hive by vaporisation, and what were the results of the swabs?

Why buy yeast though? Wouldn't the idea be to compare existing yeast and other microflora afterwards, with what existed naturally before in the 6 hives already?

Anyway, what were the results?


----------



## Michael Bush

>We all answer hypothetical questions..... 

Foolishly, we probably do from time to time. But why waste the time and effort on somthing that isn't a real question. "If there were no such thing as gravity, what would you do to stay on the planet?" is not something you should spend a lot of time trying to answer...

> It's a legitimate question that he has chosen not to answer.

How are hypothetical questions legitimate? What if I asked, "if you were beating your wife everyday and someone suggested this was a bad idea..."

Hypothetical questions are not "legitimate" questions, they are, by definition, not real questions, they are hypothetical.

By asking what treatment I would use if I HAD to use one, you're asking me to choose what damage I consider acceptable to do to the ecology of the hive. I don't consider any damage acceptable if there is any way to avoid it, and there is so I avoid it.


----------



## snl

Michael Bush said:


> > It's a legitimate question that he has chosen not to answer.


Michael, I was going to let go of this until you responded. You call it a a hypothetical question, I believe it as a very real one and one you've chosen not to answer. That's fine. However, for many of us who must treat to save our hives, it is a very difficult decision to decide with what to treat. We have reached out to you for guidance since many of us say to ourselves from time to time "What would MB do?" You offer so many valid and good opinions as to how to do this or how to do that so that asking you, what you would use to treat your hives if what you were doing no longer worked is very real.


----------



## jmgi

snl said:


> You call it a a hypothetical question, I believe it as a very real one and one you've chosen not to answer. That's fine.


If it's fine, then why don't you back out gracefully instead of trying to get the last word in? This is getting old.


----------



## snl

jmgi said:


> If it's fine, then why don't you back out gracefully instead of trying to get the last word in?


I did, until Michael then again responded. Are you not interested in what MB would do if his method of controlling mites failed to work? MB is a vendor selling his book on BS and a renowned speaker. I would think everyone on BS would want to know what MB would do if his methods of mite control failed.


----------



## beemandan

snl said:


> Are you not interested in what MB would do if his method of controlling mites failed to work?


No.
This horse was dead a hundred posts ago. But folks continue to thrash away. I stop by periodically just to see who's still at it.


----------



## Moots

Michael Bush said:


> >We all answer hypothetical questions.....
> 
> By asking what treatment I would use if I HAD to use one, you're asking me to choose what damage I consider acceptable to do to the ecology of the hive. I don't consider any damage acceptable if there is any way to avoid it, and there is so I avoid it.


snl,
Maybe I'm missing something, but I think he did answer your question as honestly as he could. Just because you don't like his answer, doesn't mean he didn't answer it. Personally, I think it was a loaded question...

It's like if someone were to ask you...."I know you don't beat your kids or believe in beating kids...But if you had to beat one of them, which one would you beat?"

And then being upset because they won't name one...


----------



## jmgi

snl, I am a small sideliner and totally treatment free, the only thing that I have done other than watch my bees die from mites the last two years is to try some vsh queens a few years back, and they died, I should say collapsed, just like all the others did. They didn't even last 7 months. I have thought seriously about treating out of disgust, but even though I have had disastrous losses I am still commited to remaining treatment free for the same reasons Michael Bush has. After having to practically start over every year with new bees the last several years, I am now going to try it Michael Bush's way, and not just his, but others here on the forum doing the same thing with success. Yes, its going to cost me even more money changing over to narrow frames, small cell, and northern adapted queens, but what other choice do I have if I don't want to treat? 

Don't you think we use too many chemicals in this country already? Even though OA and some of the other treatments may keep bees alive longer comparatively speaking, how do we know that we aren't creating other problems (the types of problems MB speaks of) for the bees that we don't see, its like robbing Peter to pay Paul.


----------



## Saltybee

Michael Bush has already answered with his actions. Started over more than once. More convincing than a verbal answer to me.

Next question will be; What would you do if you had the last bees on earth and mites were killing them?

I do not think he will buy OA or endorse it. But good luck trying.


----------



## snl

Saltybee said:


> Next question will be; What would you do if you had the last bees on earth and mites were killing them?
> Salty, I'd treat......not sure with what as I don't know what would be available to treat with at that time. Maybe some "silver bullet" would have arrived by then.
> I do not think he will buy OA or endorse it. But good luck trying.


Salty, was never trying to get MB to buy or endorse OA treatment. He has already tried it prior to going TF. I envy him his great success on TF. TF just does not work for me and evidently many others. However, just as we ask speakers in a conference (and BS is really an online conference) questions, I was just posing the question to him, one BS member to another... not as a vendor because we are both vendors here on BS.


----------



## Saltybee

And you are both selling a great product. One most of us need for now and the other one everyone wants in their size, but it just does not fit yet.


----------



## Oldtimer

Michael Bush is a vendor here? What does he sell?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Books. See the ad in the right margin of this page.


----------



## jrhoto

I'am not trying to sway anyone one way or the other but take time to watch a documentry that was made i think in 2012 called More than Honey.It sheds a little light on the plight of bees.In the end everyone has to make his on decision.

www.poorvalleybeefarm.com


----------



## Michael Bush

No need to buy the book. It's all on my website for free.


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh OK I knew about the book, wondered if you were selling something else Michael.


----------



## snl

From Michael's website: What I do.

I use the small cell/natural cell and Screened Bottom Boards (SBB) and I monitor the mites with a white board under the SBB. As long as the mites stay under control, and so far, since 2002 they have, that's all I do. If the mites were to start going up while the supers are on I would probably fog with FGMO or dust with powdered sugar_*. If they were still high after fall harvest, I would use Oxalic Acid vapor.*_ So far I haven't needed them since the bees were regressed. Basically just small cell has been effective for me for both kinds of mites and adequate under normal conditions.


----------



## Waggle

:v:Wow snl, you just don't know when to stop. I am starting to believe you would beat a dead horse:digging:.


----------



## WLC

Well, snl should have just posted that up in the first place.

Of course, something as cheap and easy as using OA seems like a simple solution to Varroa infestation, but it not only leads to a factory farm model of beekeeping, but there's also an unintended consequence on Honeybee stocks in the U.S. .

We now have two main hybrid managed stocks: the western and the eastern U.S. commercial stocks.

After having looked as some of the genetic analyses that has been done on them, and knowing how utterly dependent they are on treatments, we've inherited two problems.

Honeybees have not only bottlenecked into two hybrid groups (they're not as diverse as some think), they're also stuck on the treatment treadmill.

They're not that different than livestock found in large scale operations at this point.

So, why not use OA (or other treatments)? Because you'll be stuck in a bottleneck while on a treadmill.

We really do need to do a better job of developing resistant stocks without the bottlenecks.

You can't do that by using OA.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

WLC said:


> We really do need to do a better job of developing resistant stocks without the bottlenecks.


Sounds like a plan. Would it make sense to start breeding programs with those who are already maintaining vibrant treatment free bees, and then spread those genetics around to others?


----------



## snl

From WLC:

Well, snl should have just posted that up in the first place.
I posted it when I found it on his website. Michael should have been more forthcoming in his answer.

Of course, something as cheap and easy as using OA seems like a simple solution to Varroa infestation, but it not only leads to a factory farm model of beekeeping, but there's also an unintended consequence on Honeybee stocks in the U.S. . 
We now have two main hybrid managed stocks: the western and the eastern U.S. commercial stocks.

After having looked as some of the genetic analyses that has been done on them, and knowing how utterly dependent they are on treatments, we've inherited two problems.

Honeybees have not only bottlenecked into two hybrid groups (they're not as diverse as some think), they're also stuck on the treatment treadmill.

They're not that different than livestock found in large scale operations at this point.

So, why not use OA (or other treatments)? Because you'll be stuck in a bottleneck while on a treadmill.
But if you don't ........most of us will have dead bees. The choice is ........yours.

We really do need to do a better job of developing resistant stocks without the bottlenecks.
Agreed.
You can't do that by using OA
Or with any other treatment I would think. But if those of use who are not fortunate enough to have bees that survive TF and wish to save what we have will treat with either OA or their preferred treatment. From my research, OAV seems for me the least harmful of treatments that work.


----------



## snl

Waggle said:


> :v:Wow snl, you just don't know when to stop. I am starting to believe you would beat a dead horse:digging:.


You can post that after reading what Michael Bush previously stated here in this thread and then what I found on his website? Really?


----------



## WLC

I bought my 'chemical free' bees from pretty much the only source available to me.

Currently, there are perhaps 700-500 breeder queens that are the source of the current commercially available stocks of queens. Yet, they're, for the most part, hopelessly hybridized, and they're also dependent on treatments for survival.

What's worse is that the average queen lasts an average of six months.

That's the current problem.

Having seen how my resistant stock compares to my previous domestic/commercial bees, I foresee a problem.

They're simply not ready for commercialization.

Either you're going to have to put the best queen breeders in the country on the problem, or you're going to have to go the biotechnology route.

I'm not sure that the 'dominance' of some of the undesirable characteristics that come with resistance can be separated out by breeding.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

WLC said:


> They're simply not ready for commercialization.


So in the interim ... my choice is either treat to keep my colonies alive, or let most of my colonies die and then replace them every year with the same inferior stock.


----------



## WLC

Mike Gillmore said:


> So in the interim ... my choice is ether treat to keep my colonies alive, or let most of my colonies die and then replace them every year with the same inferior stock.


Today, yes.


----------



## jmgi

Mike Gillmore said:


> So in the interim ... my choice is either treat to keep my colonies alive, or let most of my colonies die and then replace them every year with the same inferior stock.


It doesn't appear Mike Bush is doing either of these and still has healthy bees, so I guess there is another choice. Seems like lots of people just don't want to take the time and effort shifting gears to doing things the way he does them and see if it works, they would rather just throw more chemicals around without knowing, or maybe even caring to know what the repercussions might be down the road.


----------



## Daniel Y

That time effort and expense is no small difference. it is in fact so great I as a beginner will not even consider it. I need increase for my effort and investment. and treatment free does not even begin to offer that. If there is any one single reason i will not take up TF that would be it. Make it work. then you will have my interest. I have not seen anything yet I consider working.

Not to mention that so far treating them and everything else I have done has resulted in 100% survival. I like Michael can say I don't see any need to change what I am doing. As far as I can tell it is cheaper, easier and works better. I realize I have a ways to go though.


----------



## jmgi

Daniel Y, Seeing as it sounds you've never tried TF, what kind of TF success rate do you need to see going on around the country before it gets your interest? Do you think Dee Lusby, MB, and others who are successful at it are some kind of magicians? And nobody can duplicate what they are doing given some time and effort? But you are right, being TF is not cheaper, or easier, especially when you have to do a 180 from what you are currently doing. But as a beginner as you say you are, it seems the right time for experimenting with it.


----------



## Saltybee

snl said:


> From Michael's website: What I do.
> 
> I use the small cell/natural cell and Screened Bottom Boards (SBB) and I monitor the mites with a white board under the SBB. As long as the mites stay under control, and so far, since 2002 they have, that's all I do. If the mites were to start going up while the supers are on I would probably fog with FGMO or dust with powdered sugar_*. If they were still high after fall harvest, I would use Oxalic Acid vapor.*_ So far I haven't needed them since the bees were regressed. Basically just small cell has been effective for me for both kinds of mites and adequate under normal conditions.


I stand corrected, I was wrong in MB's position.

Basically snl, myself and MB are the same. We will do what we have to do, the only difference is MB feels he has to do less than I feel I have to do.


----------



## Michael Bush

>If they were still high after fall harvest, I would use Oxalic Acid vapor

I wrote that more than a decade ago and the jury was still out on small cell then. I need to update the page. Oviously, I would not write that now. I will update it when I get home tonight.


----------



## deknow

I love how the content of Michael Bush's website is on topic, and the content of SNL's website somehow isn't. What is that you are selling?

deknow


----------



## Saltybee

Well I'm on a roll; just keep racking up the wrongs. 
Change a position after ten years? Why would you do that?


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

Michael Bush said:


> >If they were still high after fall harvest, I would use Oxalic Acid vapor
> 
> I wrote that more than a decade ago and the jury was still out on small cell then. I need to update the page. Oviously, I would not write that now. I will update it when I get home tonight.


Imagine that! Having a website about keeping bees that's been up on the web for *over a decade*! Imagine that it actually _needs updating_! WOW! Has his chief critic here even been keeping bees for a whole decade?!? And his website is--what?--5 minutes old?

The pettiness of some people truly astounds me!



Rusty


----------



## jmgi

MB spoke on his site of a treatment he may have used and promoted 10 years ago when he was still figuring out if natural cell or small cell was a better answer, and now people want to hold him to that same statement today is very unfair, even though for the last 10 years he has done nothing but discourage the use of treatments for the overall health of the hive, and has encouraged natural and small cell as a more viable option. It seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.


----------



## Moots

Daniel Y said:


> Not to mention that so far treating them and everything else I have done* has resulted in 100% survival*...


***Emphasis added*

WOW! I don't think I've ever seen any Beek claim 100% survival of their bees, regardless of what methods or treatments they may have used. How many hives, over what period of time?...How exactly do you define survival?


----------



## johno

Well 100% survival would depend on a certain time period, I am sure that there are many beekeepers who have had a 100% survival over 1, 2,or 3 seasons but to have a 100% survival over a beekeepers lifetime would be another story, similar to some of the stories that abound on BS
Johno


----------



## Oldtimer

I can think of several on Beesource with, thus far, 100% survival, the ones I think of are similar to Daniel, just been going a season or two, some of them treat, some don't. I see no reason whatsoever to doubt Daniels honesty.

Also the thread has taken a somewhat ugly detour from the topic. The topic is not (the age old) treat vs non treat debate, which has already been done a thousand / thousands of time with no real winners, nor is the topic attack / defend Michael Bush. Michael has stepped up and said that was his position 10 years ago, 10 years on it's now different, so be it. Me, I would say I've changed my mind a few times over the last 10 years, just, I don't have a web site.


----------



## jmgi

I've been changing with the wind the last few years it seems, trying to find a way to keep my bees alive without treating. Looks like that will continue in the immediate future sorry to say.


----------



## Moots

Oldtimer said:


> I can think of several on Beesource with, thus far, 100% survival, the ones I think of are similar to Daniel, just been going a season or two, some of them treat, some don't. I see no reason whatsoever to doubt Daniels honesty.


Oldtimer,
I certainly wasn't doubting his honesty, I was merely seeking clarification on exactly what he meant by 100% survival. Some people play PGA rules when they golf, and some people play that if your ball is within 3 feet of the hole....Close enough, pick it up, it counts! No dishonesty on either side, just two different views of the same game. 

I thought it brought up an interesting question...exactly how do individuals define a loss hive? My guess is different Beeks view this differently. Losing a queen, re-queening, "borrowing" resources from another hive, etc. etc.

A few Examples:
You start the season with 10 hives, one gets overrun by SHB, but you split a strong hive...So you finish the year with 10....Did you have a loss, or are you even? 

You capture a swarm from your own yard and hive them...three days later, they abscond....Did you lose a hive, and therefore count it as a loss, or did you never really have it?

You do a walk away split...One half survives, the other doesn't...Did you loss a hive, or just fail to gain one?


----------



## Oldtimer

Good points Moots. :thumbsup:


----------



## Mike Gillmore

jmgi said:


> I've been changing with the wind the last few years it seems, trying to find a way to keep my bees alive without treating. Looks like that will continue in the immediate future sorry to say.


I understand exactly how you feel. I made a significant effort over a few year period to replicate everything MB does with his colonies. Upper entrances, unlimited brood nest, natural and small cell, etc. I still pretty much mirror most of his practices, and will continue to do so in the future. But when the day came to pull the plug on OA and go treatment free, I lost almost 100% of my colonies to mites. After restocking and resuming OA in the following years the losses averaged only about 20%, including starvation, queenlessness, etc. 

I just don't have the courage or will to try it again and risk those kinds of losses. I think there must be another component in play that MB has active in his yards, but mine lack. It could be his queen's genetics, the environment, lack of pressure from non-resistant colonies in the area ... I don't know.


----------



## sqkcrk

Moots said:


> Oldtimer,
> I certainly wasn't doubting his honesty, I was merely seeking clarification on exactly what he meant by 100% survival. Some people play PGA rules when they golf, and some people play that if your ball is within 3 feet of the hole....Close enough, pick it up, it counts! No dishonesty on either side, just two different views of the same game.
> 
> I thought it brought up an interesting question...exactly how do individuals define a loss hive? My guess is different Beeks view this differently. Losing a queen, re-queening, "borrowing" resources from another hive, etc. etc.
> 
> A few Examples:
> You start the season with 10 hives, one gets overrun by SHB, but you split a strong hive...So you finish the year with 10....Did you have a loss, or are you even?
> 
> You capture a swarm from your own yard and hive them...three days later, they abscond....Did you lose a hive, and therefore count it as a loss, or did you never really have it?
> 
> You do a walk away split...One half survives, the other doesn't...Did you loss a hive, or just fail to gain one?


The way I see it, "winterloss" is the number of dead colonies coming out of winter. Say I had 100 live colonies in October and 90 live colonies in April, then my winterloss was 10 colonies. What most people don't keep good track of and don't report are the number of colonies that go belly up during the rest of the year from going drone layer, or diseased or whatever.

That is a number which we might aught to pay attention to too.


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> The way I see it, "winterloss" is the number of dead colonies coming out of winter.


This is one of the reasons I generally avoid these discussions. I cull hard at season's end. My 'overwinter' losses are usually less than 5% but to report them as such would be dishonest. All year long I collect empty hives from shakeouts or other failures to clean and repaint. In spring, when I'm ready to refill and return them...I do a count....and use that to figure my year to year losses. As you see....we all do it differently....and so one person's numbers are pretty much meaningless without all the details. And who, in their right mind, wants to sift through that?


----------



## sqkcrk

Amen Dan, amen.

I guess it would be easy enuf for me to say that I had zero loss too. All of my hives that are alive are alive.  Knowing DanielY he has a way of justifying his 100% success statement. I just don't know what it is. Unless it is that all of his hives have always had bees in them uninterupted. Which doesn't mean that queens didn't die or get surceded or something.

Only Daniel knows what he means. I don't know any beekeeper who hasn't lost a colony of bees, unless they just bought them.


----------



## WLC

Still not a reason for not using OA.


----------



## johno

what have I learned from 170 posts on this thread, some folks would rather I watch my colonies die from varoasis than treat with OA. Some beekeepers are so stupid that they will kill themselves treating their colonies. That it is better to have a lot of microbes on dead bees than less microbes on live bees. that according to post #63, Government closest to the people is better, Government over 4 million people must be closer than a Government over 350 million people. So after all that I shall continue to use OA as one of my mite treatments and as my IQ is not below 40 hopefully I will not kill myself using the OA treatment.
Johno


----------



## Michael Bush

>That it is better to have a lot of microbes on dead bees than less microbes on live bees.

But my bees aren't dead


----------



## johno

Well Mr Bush, as I do not use OA on your bees perhaps it was my bees I was referring to. which reminds me of the other thing that I learned, if I use FA in my hives the bee bread wont rise.
Johno


----------



## beekuk

johno said:


> if I use FA in my hives the bee bread wont rise.
> Johno


Plenty other stuff being sprayed around to stop the bee bread rising Johno.

January 27, 2014

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- Four pesticides commonly used on crops to kill insects and fungi also kill honeybee larvae within their hives, according to Penn State and University of Florida researchers. The team also found that N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) -- an inert, or inactive, chemical commonly used as a pesticide additive -- is highly toxic to honeybee larvae.


According to Frazier, the team's previous research demonstrated that forager bees bring back to the hive an average of six different pesticides on the pollen they collect. Nurse bees use this pollen to make beebread, which they then feed to honeybee larvae.

According to Chris Mullin, professor of entomology, Penn State, these pesticides may directly poison honeybee larvae or they may indirectly kill them by disrupting the beneficial fungi that are essential for nurse bees to process pollen into beebread.

http://news.psu.edu/story/301619/20...mon-crop-pesticides-kill-honeybee-larvae-hive


----------



## Ravenseye

I think there are a lot of losses that are not due to a single factor. Mark makes a good point when he talks about winter loss vs. losses during the warm seasons. For example, I lost three hives this fall due to a bear cub deciding to have some fun. A fourth was badly reduced in numbers and while it's still hanging on, it may not make it into the spring. Certainly, that colony is likely stressed by who knows what else.....mites, disease, etc. I know that after the bear hit it, the colony experienced significant robbing. This was a hive that I used OA on last year. If I lose it, and I would say the odds are good that I will, I can blame the loss on winter, bears, robbing and mites. I can likely find some blame among all those factors. I think we all experience variables that affect colony health to some extent or another. In my mind, the use of OA can be effective but I still worry that just because I can "see" the positive effects doesn't mean that there aren't negative factors associated with its use and, as we all seem to agree on, it isn't a magic potion for mites.


----------



## snl

Ravenseye said:


> In my mind, the use of OA can be effective but I still worry that just because I can "see" the positive effects doesn't mean that there aren't negative factors associated with its use and, as we all seem to agree on, it isn't a magic potion for mites.


Totally agree OA is no silver bullet, but perhaps a "brass one." If used in combination with other treatments, it's a powerful tool.


----------



## shinbone

The OA vaporizers I have purchased and used both came with specific instructions on how to use the devices on beehives, and had very clear warnings about handling OA and breathing its vapors.


----------



## Robbin

snl said:


> Totally agree OA is no silver bullet, but perhaps a "brass one." If used in combination with other treatments, it's a powerful tool.


I like OAV on my hives so much, I bought a second one to make it more time efficient. I can treat the next hive while my first unit cools off a little. It takes me about 3 minutes per hive, I hope to cut that to less than 2 by using 2 units and overlapping the time, while one is cooking and cooling I'm starting the next. My drop counts were great and all my hives survived the winter.

I keep a smoker going to track the wind...


----------



## Duncan Thacker

snl said:


> Whether or not you agree with the using OA in either a dribble or vaporized form for many of the reasons discussed here and in other forums, there is no doubt that it works. Potential users would do well to research the product and draw their own conclusions. It is another weapon on the war on mites that I'm sure if it was an approved mitecide here in the US as it is in the rest of the world, beekeepers would not hesitate to openly use it to save their hives.


To answer the thread NO WAY would I use this product. No arguing the fact that it works, but then again cutting off my hand works to fix my hang nail too. No arguing it exists in food. In such small quantities and not in vapor form so its harmless. Then there is the fact ITS NOT LEGAL.

Its wood bleach!!

So I am not going to put anything in my hives that requires a nuclear, chemical, biological suit to apply. Anyone that sells honey to a novice and explains its natural because it occurs naturally in food is giving the consumer half the story. WE ALL know if you actually explained the ENTIRE process to a consumer they would never buy honey again.

Colony Collapse had everyone so scared that we were going to loose honey bees forever so we rushed to anything that worked.

I would not use OA or FA the requirement for PPE is enough. Why not use it? because there are better safer alternatives.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

Well, this IS the USA and you ARE entitled to your opinion.  Even if much of the rest of the world does not agree with you. 

JMO

Rusty


----------



## snl

Duncan Thacker said:


> To answer the thread NO WAY would I use this product.


Clearly there are others who agree and disagree with you. The EPA hopefully by the end of this year or early next will approve OA for use in beehives.

OA is no rush to use "anything that worked." Europeans and others have used it for over a decade.


----------



## WLC

OA is probably the most often used mite treatment in the U.S. .

I still can't believe that it has taken them this long to make a statement regarding OA, and the 'foot dragging' makes me wonder if they really understand that Varroa is still the #1 threat to Honeybees/beekeeping worldwide.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

snl said:


> OA is no rush to use "anything that worked." Europeans and others have used it for over a decade.


The rush started over a decade ago. I lived in Europe 96 to 2010. Studied bees in apiaries from Germany to Romania OA was jumped on by the German beekeepers for the same reasons it is used here. They were more afraid of loosing the bees and willing to make the compromise. Truth is the treatments and methods being used are as wide spread there as here, Everyone regardless of what country they reside in are looking for the answer. The real question is what degree of purity in the product are you willing to live with. The answer to THAT question will dictate what you do or do not use in your hives. Again I like to apply the Hippocratic oath or parts there of, in particular......."first do no harm". 

Simply stating because they do it over there or everywhere else is NOT justification for doing it elsewhere. That's why we have organizations like the EPA and FDA. To protect consumers from those that would improperly use products and contaminate food products. Just because it works is no reason to use it without first being approved this insures it is SAFE for the general public. That's why we have the checks and balances we have in place. Does it always work ...NO but better to have the research done properly to US standards that not.


----------



## Saltybee

Purity is pretty hard to come by. If it is in the enviroment it is in the food source. It is OA or what else? TF gets you closer to contamination free, Amish a step closer, even they use leather and metals. Guessing you did not sail over from Europe. We are all pretty dirty creatures.
Got to drive to Lowes in my SUV to pick up vacuum bags shipped from China. Contaminate my food source? Every day without going near a hive.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

Saltybee said:


> Purity is pretty hard to come by. If it is in the enviroment it is in the food source. It is OA or what else? TF gets you closer to contamination free, Amish a step closer, even they use leather and metals. Guessing you did not sail over from Europe. We are all pretty dirty creatures.Got to drive to Lowes in my SUV to pick up vacuum bags shipped from China. Contaminate my food source? Every day without going near a hive.


So what you are saying is its dirty anyway why clean it? its dirty anyway so making it even more filthy does not matter. That attitude will surely result in failure. Thanks for the insight but I choose to at least try to make it better.


----------



## beekuk

Duncan Thacker said:


> So what you are saying is its dirty anyway why clean it? its dirty anyway so making it even more filthy does not matter.


Maybe it springs from this thread...where the consensus seems to be the more filthy things are, the more healthy they are likely to be.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?293350-Microbial-ecology-HOW


----------



## Duncan Thacker

Thread or not, its so preposterously idiotic it does not warrant a reply. I'm not getting sucked into a debate over cleanliness. Done.


----------



## Saltybee

Deciding that you have reached a pinacle of purity for not using OA is self serving. In the balance of life it is not much to judge others upon.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

Duncan Thacker said:


> Why not use it? because there are better safer alternatives.


Curious what "safer alternatives" you would approve of.


----------



## beemandan

Duncan Thacker said:


> I'm not getting sucked into a debate over cleanliness. Done.


Who started the 'debate' in the first place?


----------



## camero7

> So I am not going to put anything in my hives that requires a nuclear, chemical, biological suit to appl


Been using it for about 4 years. Never put anything on and I'm still kicking and my lungs are fine. You are WAY overblowing the dangers of this stuff. Better quit eating spinach if you're really afraid of it.:no:


----------



## Oldtimer

Probably way more dirt in a spinach leaf than a gram of OA even the wood bleach grade.

I have now built myself a crude OA vapour generator that blows a constant stream of vapour so I can walk from hive to hive with it and do a whole yard in minutes (in theory), the reality being it is slung together crudely the heat chamber is wrong and it all fits together poorly. However it does work it's a good prototype now I just have to make one with some minor design changes and better constructed.


----------



## Daniel Y

Moots said:


> Oldtimer,
> I certainly wasn't doubting his honesty, I was merely seeking clarification on exactly what he meant by 100% survival.


I have never had a Colony die. of 25 colonies started I still have 23. the other two where sold. And that is not 23 hives full of bees still full of bees. it is any colony started is still alive. my first 4 are starting their 3rd year. Another 8 are in their second year and the rest are overwintered nucs.

As for swarming or supercedure. Since when has that been considered a loss of a hive?


----------



## Daniel Y

Why do I get visions of Oldtimer running through his apiary attempting to get his vaporizer back under control. Sort of like a run away weed wacker. Gassing everything in sight into oblivion. Or am I just over playing it with that one?



Oldtimer said:


> I have now built myself a crude OA vapour generator that blows a constant stream of vapour so I can walk from hive to hive with it and do a whole yard in minutes (in theory), the reality being it is slung together crudely the heat chamber is wrong and it all fits together poorly. However it does work it's a good prototype now I just have to make one with some minor design changes and better constructed.


----------



## Moots

Daniel Y said:


> I have never had a Colony die. of 25 colonies started I still have 23. the other two where sold. And that is not 23 hives full of bees still full of bees. it is any colony started is still alive. my first 4 are starting their 3rd year. Another 8 are in their second year and the rest are overwintered nucs.
> 
> As for swarming or supercedure. Since when has that been considered a loss of a hive?


Daniel,
WOW! That's VERY Impressive....I don't blame you for not wanting to change a thing, who would with results like that?


----------



## JodieToadie

I have to question why the majority of the beekeepers on here believe that it is necessary to apply Oxalic Acid with a vaporizer? 
Both the beekeepers pro and con seem to be fixated on the vaporizer. 
I have seen incredible mite knockdown using the trickle method. (Fall 2012) This last year I had barely any mites at all which I attribute almost solely to the efficacy of the dribble method. I use a veterinary syringe, count the frame spaces full of bees and apply as per the instructions. I have no risk of inhaling pure Oxalic Vapors, and I would assume that high portions of the Oxalic are digested and expelled through the bees bodies. 

Why handle it in such a dangerous fashion?

Dripping
Dissolve 185 g Oxalic Acid Dihydrate in 4 litre of 1:1 sugar syrup or 6 ½ oz in 1 US Gallon
Pour 5 ml of this solution between each occupied bee-space onto bees.


----------



## Oldtimer

JodieToadie said:


> Why handle it in such a dangerous fashion?


It's a guy thing. 

Seriously though, why use a vaporiser? You put a lot less oxalic acid into a hive and get much more even coverage, plus you don't poison as much brood or bees cos no sugar is mixed with it.


----------



## Oldtimer

Daniel Y said:


> my first 4 are starting their 3rd year.


Thought you only got your first bees last season?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I prefer dribbling. You may put less oxalic acid when vaporizing, but you have to repeat it to get it work sufficiently. So in total you put more oxalic acid over a longer period of time. If you dribble when broodless, it kills more than 90 % of all mites. That is a setback that is sufficient. Vaporizing does produce the same mite drop (most of the times) - but is susceptible to fail under certain conditions. 

Which could be temperature of the vaporizer (too hot, too cold), humidity inside the hive, cluster of bees too tight,... name it. It works great until the day it fails. Dribbling is a bit more failproof.

Plus it is safer for the user. Plus it is quicker. (At least compared to vaporizing devices I come across so far.)

The best way to dribble is to use a 50 ml syringe. You drill a small hole above the 50 ml mark on the syringe. So you pull up the oxalic acid, up to the 50 ml mark. When you want to dribble, pull it above the 50 ml mark and above the hole. This lets the air in and it dribbles nicely without any pushing. You can dose your dribbling by placing your finger or thumb over the hole, reducing the air inflow and thus the dribbling. 30 ml for smaller hives, 50 ml in normal sized colonies. Don't dribble on small colonies, it'll kill it. The oxalic acid has to be warmed (lukewarm) and it should contain sugar, so the bees take and distribute it within the colony.

Because there are lots of ways to muddle up the mixture, oxalic acid is not oxalic acid, the failproof way is to buy a ready-to-go veterinary product made for use in bee hives. If your laws allow it, of course.

Oxalic acid damages the bees' guts and softens the chitin of their exoskeleton. It reduces the lifespan slightly. In summer bees that doesn't matter much, because the lifespan is only weeks anyway. In winterbees that does matter a lot, since it reduces the number of bees that come out of winter. On the other hand, mostly the varroa-weakened bees die off from oxalic acid treatments, reducing the viruses in a hive. So that might be a good thing, if they do not survive the wintertime.


----------



## jmgi

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Don't dribble on small colonies, it'll kill it..... Oxalic acid damages the bees' guts and softens the chitin of their exoskeleton.


And people defend using this stuff saying they would rather have live bees than dead bees. :scratch:


----------



## Mike Gillmore

BernhardHeuvel said:


> If you dribble when broodless, it kills more than 90 % of all mites.
> 
> On the other hand, mostly the varroa-weakened bees die off from oxalic acid treatments, reducing the viruses in a hive.


This is probably the most common reason for vaporizing. If the colony is infested with mites in the "fall", by the time you get to a broodless state to dribble in early winter, a very high percentage of the bees have been impacted by mite pressure. Then, as you mentioned, after dribble the varroa weakened bees die off. In the winter, with a greatly reduced cluster, that's the end of the colony. Vaporizing a few times in the fall months eliminates a high percentage of mites going into winter, and provides a stronger winter cluster.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

Mike Gillmore said:


> This is probably the most common reason for vaporizing. If the colony is infested with mites in the "fall", by the time you get to a broodless state to dribble in early winter, a very high percentage of the bees have been impacted by mite pressure. Then, as you mentioned, after dribble the varroa weakened bees die off. In the winter, with a greatly reduced cluster, that's the end of the colony. Vaporizing a few times in the fall months eliminates a high percentage of mites going into winter, and provides a stronger winter cluster.


This is why monitoring the mite count is so important its not just treating that is important without proper timing you are just spinning your wheels. Targeting your treatments will not only minimize expense and labor it is the beginning step to getting treatment free for those of us in areas that don't have an environmental advantage. The same effects can be achieved using powdered sugar and you don't need to worry about so many precautions which take away from the enjoyment of the craft. Kinda a no brainer.!!!!!

Now someone will post some manufactures info about the dangers of powdered sugar dust and inhalation. In reality the breathing any dust can be harmful the reality is can you eat wood bleach No. Can you eat powdered sugar yes. Can you eat OA SURE its in food its just not wood bleach yet because it has not been condensed by man into a deadly chemical.

The argument that OA is found in food therefore wood bleach is safe to consume is biblically absurd and idiotic. Then there is the fact that everyone seems to want to over look ITS ILLEGAL. 

Ask this, Would beekeepers who use OA put a full explanation pamphlet with their honey explaining the entire OA process to include its other uses. Do you think anyone would buy honey under those circumstances. Misleading the consumer is also illegal. 

The real question that should be asked is: Why are you still using OA when there are other just as effective and safer methods out there.

IF that is not enough to answer the question Why not? nothing is.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

Saltybee said:


> Deciding that you have reached a pinacle of purity for not using OA is self serving. In the balance of life it is not much to judge others upon.


NO one said or implied "pinnacle of purity".


----------



## Duncan Thacker

Mike Gillmore said:


> Curious what "safer alternatives" you would approve of.


I would expect someone with moderator status to already know the answer to that. For the beeks new to the craft research Thomas Dowda and the powdered sugar method then further research Dennis Murrell aka Bee Wrangler. Also remember above all else using OA in your hives is not only dangerous its Illegal.


----------



## Saltybee

Duncan Thacker said:


> NO one said or implied "pinnacle of purity".


Must just have been my impression. 
Few believe OA is totally without long term risk. In the scale of what we do ever day and daily exposures to everyday pollution OA beyond the hive is not great. As for breaking the law, I frequently drive the limit plus 10 just to keep up with traffic. Quilty as charged, but I will still sleep tonight.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

Duncan Thacker said:


> Ask this, Would beekeepers who use OA put a full explanation pamphlet with their honey explaining the entire OA process to include its other uses. Do you think anyone would buy honey under those circumstances. Misleading the consumer is also illegal.


How about a pamphlet about *all* the perfectly legal treatments out there? How many consumers would still eat honey then? How about apples? Lettuce? Bread? You name the product and it's got its own problems, many of which are WAY worse than OA!

Or maybe we should all go organic? Except.... Have you read about the stuff that's being done legally to organic foods these days? Not to mention that "organic honey" is, by definition, an oxymoron! 

OA is probably one of the least damaging options we have just now. Of course, once you have invented the perfect bee for us (you can do that, right?  ) then all our problems will be over and we can all finally stop bickering and get back to raising good, sweet _honey_!

   

Rusty


----------



## Oldtimer

Duncan Thacker said:


> This is why monitoring the mite count is so important its not just treating that is important without proper timing you are just spinning your wheels.


Excellent point I suspect all experienced beekeepers will be well aware of that.



Duncan Thacker said:


> The same effects can be achieved using powdered sugar and you don't need to worry about so many precautions which take away from the enjoyment of the craft. Kinda a no brainer.!!!!!.


Not really the case. A powdered sugar treatment will only eliminate a fraction of the mites from a hive that an OA treatment will. In addition, a powdered sugar treatment can kill more young brood than most practitioners of this method ever knew was possible.


----------



## beemandan

Duncan Thacker said:


> research Thomas Dowda and the powdered sugar method Also remember above all else using OA in your hives is not only dangerous its Illegal.


Just so we're on the same page.....powdered sugar.....when was that approved and therefore legal?
Add to that a lack of efficacy.....then not only does powdered sugar not work....it's Illegal!


----------



## beemandan

Duncan Thacker said:


> The real question is what degree of purity in the product are you willing to live with. The answer to THAT question will dictate what you do or do not use in your hives.





Duncan Thacker said:


> NO one said or implied "pinnacle of purity".


Hmmmmmmm


----------



## Duncan Thacker

Oldtimer said:


> Not really the case. A powdered sugar treatment will only eliminate a fraction of the mites from a hive that an OA treatment will. In addition, a powdered sugar treatment can kill more young brood than most practitioners of this method ever knew was possible.


No proof to support that at all. Proof is they both work PERIOD. sugar is cheaper , safer, and can be done anytime as often as you want. If done correctly as with any treatment it is just as effective and harms no more brood than anything else. Its a safe and LEGAL as putting sugar on your Cheerios!


----------



## Oldtimer

No Proof! Dude you need to do some reading, or perhaps try the experiment yourself. The efficiency of powdered sugar against oxalic acid can be determined very simply by running drop board tests against two groups of hives, as I have. What's more, powdered sugar can make a few mites fall of a few bees, but kill the mites? dubious. Maybe in a jar but in a hive most of them just crawl right back on up. Some mites will end up hopelessly mired in a pile of sugar and they may expire but that's a small %.
Powdered sugar is a recognised method used to kill brood in at least one queen rearing method to kill the larvae selected as not required for queen production.

However as all things beekeeping if it works for you..... 

But I do not recommend the method to people I sell bees to, I want them to succeed.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

beemandan said:


> Hmmmmmmm


What DEGREE are you willing to LIVE with.... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm read it all. Is this all you got. YES the product is not defensible by the sole fact its ILLEGAL really is there any grey area there because I just cant think of how to make it any clearer even a child is capable of understanding right and wrong...Illegal is wrong. Comparing a felony to a traffic citation (probably a warning) is another example of a feeble attempt at justification.


Apples, Oranges, what have you, are regulated and have standards set by the FDA and EPA. Common guys you got to do better than that.

Come up with a valid argument for breaking the law and contaminating a food a source. You will loose every time.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

Oldtimer said:


> No Proof! Dude you need to do some reading, or perhaps try the experiment yourself. The efficiency of powdered sugar against oxalic acid can be determined very simply by running drop board tests against two groups of hives, as I have. What's more, powdered sugar can make a few mites fall of a few bees, but kill the mites? dubious. Maybe in a jar but in a hive most of them just crawl right back on up. In addition powdered sugar is actually a recognised method used to kill brood in at least one queen rearing method to kill the larvae selected as not required for queen production.
> 
> However as all things beekeeping if it works for you.....
> 
> But I do not recommend the method to people I sell bees to, I want them to succeed.


Not doubting the efficiency just the comparison. I can get the same efficiency it just takes a second application, even if it were ten applications its still worth the safety. OA is a dead end street. I want them to succeed too just in a long term plan that doesn't contaminate the environment.


----------



## Axtmann

Duncan Thacker said:


> No proof to support that at all. Proof is they both work PERIOD. sugar is cheaper , safer, and can be done anytime as often as you want. If done correctly as with any treatment it is just as effective and harms no more brood than anything else. Its a safe and LEGAL as putting sugar on your Cheerios!


Duncan Thacker
You are right, don't use OA in you hives. But you should also know, OA is a natural ingredient in honey. For this reason there in no MRL on OA. If you allergic to OA don't eat your honey, because very often honey (without OA treatment) contain more OA than honey from a treated colony. It's depends where the bees collect their honey from. 
As you know, rhubarb highly contain OA. To get the same amount OA like from a meal of rhubarb or spinach you must eat at least 2kg honey. No matter if the hive is treated with OA or not. Check the test results from Liebefeld in Switzerland. There are more on the internet.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

OA in food is NOT wood bleach or toilet cleaner. The comparison is moot.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Duncan Thacker said:


> No proof to support that at all. Proof is they both work PERIOD. sugar is cheaper , safer, and can be done anytime as often as you want. If done correctly as with any treatment it is just as effective and harms no more brood than anything else. Its a safe and LEGAL as putting sugar on your Cheerios!


Uh oh!  Here is a list of items that are _exempt _under FIFRA. _Sugar _is *not *on the list.



> *Active Ingredients Exempted Under 25(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act*[SUP]*[/SUP] indicates exempt active ingredients that are also exempt from pesticide residue tolerance requirements​
>  Castor oil (U.S.P. or equivalent)*Linseed oilCedar oilMalic acidCinnamon and cinnamon oil*Mint and mint oilCitric acid*Peppermint and peppermint oil*Citronella and Citronella oil2-Phenethyl propionate (2-phenylethyl propionate)Cloves and clove oil*Potassium sorbate*Corn gluten meal*Putrescent whole egg solidsCorn oil*Rosemary and rosemary oil*Cottonseed oil*Sesame (includes ground sesame plant) and sesame oil*Dried BloodSodium chloride (common salt) *EugenolSodium lauryl sulfateGarlic and garlic oil*Soybean oilGeraniol*Thyme and thyme oil*Geranium oilWhite pepperLauryl sulfateZinc metal strips (consisting solely of zinc metal and impurities)Lemongrass oil
> 
> http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/biopesticides/regtools/25b_list.htm#activeingredients


It would appear that if sugar is used to kill insects, it indeed is a *regulated pesticide*. :lookout:


----------



## beemandan

Duncan Thacker said:


> What DEGREE are you willing to LIVE with.... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.


A fine effort at misdirection but that wasn't the topic of the post you replied to. 
For a reminder....you stated:


Duncan Thacker said:


> The real question is what degree of *purity* in the product are you willing to live with. The answer to THAT question will dictate what you do or do not use in your hives.


And later in the same thread stated:


Duncan Thacker said:


> NO one said or implied "pinnacle of *purity*".


To which I replied:
Hmmmmmmm
I highlighted the term purity to help.
You see....you contradicted yourself....or maybe you are missing the point.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

Duncan Thacker said:


> I would expect someone with moderator status to already know the answer to that.


I do, just wanted to hear your thoughts.



Duncan Thacker said:


> For the beeks new to the craft research Thomas Dowda and the powdered sugar method


After that, do a powdered sugar search on Beesource and read about some of the "new beeks" attempts to use powdered sugar to control mites and see how that worked out for them.


----------



## shinbone

Duncan Thacker said:


> The same effects can be achieved using powdered sugar . . .


Duncan,

I would love to use powder sugar dusting to control mites, if it actually worked. 

I googled "Thomas Dowda," and couldn't find any studies done by him. I did see that his name is indeed associated with powder sugar dusting, though, just no studies authored by him turned up for me.

I also googled "Dennis Murrell" and "Bee Wrangler". Again, no studies turned up. However, I did find a July, 2007 post by Dennis Murrell signed "BWrangler" preferring not to treat, but recommending oxalic acid over sugar dusting when treatment is necessary:

"_Sugar dusting, in any form, takes more work and can be disruptive. I've tried to automate the process by using a bee blower and injecting it into the hive entrance. But, all I've been able to accomplish is providing fodder for the world's funniest videos, had anyone been watching and recording :>)__

If treatment is a must and I haven't treated in a decade. Then oxalic acid vapors are my choice over sugar dusting.

Regards
BWrangler
_
( http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?232126-bellows-type-dusters-are-junk ) see post #14

The most recent study on powdered sugar dusting to control varroa I found was published in 2012, and concluded: "_10-month colony survival between treated and non-treated colonies was virtually identical, and poor, at 38-39%._" (http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/documents/RevisitingPowderedSugar-JAR51414.pdf)

Another study I found was published in 2009, and concluded: "_Within the limits of our study and at the application rates used, we did not find that dusting colonies with powdered sugar afforded significant varroa control._" (http://drkamran.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Ellis-et-al-2009-sugar-dust.pdf)

Can you provide more specific information on studies showing powdered sugar dusting does indeed control varroa? And, what sugar dusting procedure and frequency do you use and what are your results?

Thanks.






.


----------



## Michael Bush

Sugar in jams and jellies is used to kill bacteria. Has the EPA and the FDA approved it to kill bacteria? I don't think so. But is it approved as food? Yes. But the real reason it's there is to kill the bacteria, or at least that was its original purpose when "preserves" were actually being "preserved". Citric acid and vinegar are used to kill bacteria as well. Are bacteria pests? Part of the problem with all this is it's not specifically delineated in the law how things work when they are generally regarded as safe in other contexts but you are using it to kill a bug. A lot of organic gardeners use soap as a pesticide. I don't think that's been approved either. But I don't see the EPA going after the organic gardeners... yet. Could they? I think by the letter of the law, the EPA can interpret the law any way they like and so they probably could. Will they? I don't know...

When I resort to a pesticide (and for ants and roaches I have been known to) I WANT something that is regarded as safe and probably something that is NOT regarded as a pesticide. Borax, boric acid, cinnamon, baking soda--these are my preferred pesticides for ants and roaches, and they probably aren't approved, but they are much safer than fipronol, raid etc.

My prefered ant bait is equal parts grape jelly, water and borax. I don't think anyone will ever spend the money to get that approved as an ant pesticide, but I think it's the safest and most effective one I know of. I don't think grape jelly will ever be approved as a pesticide, but if it was and you ate it on your PBJ would you be using it off label?

These laws were passed because of DDT, Chloradane, Malthion, Organophosphates etc. They were not passed to keep organic gardeners from using dish soap on their apple tree or home owners using grape jelly and borax or beekeepers using powdered sugar. How many of you think the EPA or the FDA is ever going to prosecute a beekeeper for using powdered sugar in their hive?


----------



## Saltybee

Nothing wrong with a discussion of long term effects of OA on the beehive. 

However, I would have a greater expectation of finding long term damage from OA use as wood bleach prompting EPA action than honey food chain impact prompting FDA action. No expectation of a coming sugar ban dust either. 

None of the above is as likely to happen as Fox endorsing the ACA.


----------



## jmgi

You may not experience any visible immediate adult bee death from the use of OA as a mite treatment, but it is pretty clear that it does harm the bees to some degree. The other issue is that organic acids are known to kill bacteria. All bacteria? I don't know that answer. But I recently read a scientific paper that expresses a fear that the continued exposure of some bacteria to OA may cause a resistance to OA by some pathogenic bacteria. I guess this is just a hypothesis, but one worth some concern if the scientists are looking at it as a possibility.


----------



## shinbone

jmgi said:


> . . . but it is pretty clear that it does harm the bees to some degree.


Actually, I was under the impression that OA vapor at the recommended level was quite harmless to bees. Lots of people have been doing OA vaporization for many years with no ill affects reported when properly done. Can you point to some evidence showing that proper OA vaporization definitely harms bees?


----------



## JWChesnut

shinbone said:


> Actually, I was under the impression that OA vapor at the recommended level was quite harmless to bees. Lots of people have been doing OA vaporization for many years with no ill affects reported when properly done. Can you point to some evidence showing that proper OA vaporization definitely harms bees?




OA will harm bees if over-applied. There is a genuine risk that because OA has no cost constraint, and no "sanctioning" formulator, that beekeepers will assume if "a little is good, then a second helping will be better".


----------



## shinbone

JWChestnut - Thanks for the informative graph. Certainly applying too much OA is a bad thing. While the graph does indicate that using OA above the recommended dosage does harm bees, it also indicates that at the correct application rate, OA has little negative impact on bees and knocks the heck out of the mites.

Also, the y-axis is labeled "Mite mortality in aqueous solution, %," which sounds like this graph is for OA dribble treatment. Since OA dribble is harder on the bees than OA vaporization, this graph further indicates that OA vaporization is mostly harmless to bees.


----------



## jmgi

shinbone said:


> Actually, I was under the impression that OA vapor at the recommended level was quite harmless to bees. Lots of people have been doing OA vaporization for many years with no ill affects reported when properly done. Can you point to some evidence showing that proper OA vaporization definitely harms bees?


I was actually referring to the dribble method in which the bees get more of a soaking, if I may call it that. You may be correct that the vapor is less harmful, but I would steer clear of saying it does no harm, after all it is the same acid, just applied in different forms.


----------



## shinbone

The graph shows: "wicked deadly on mites; _practically_ harmless to bees." 

Personally, I am good with that.


----------



## delber

JW Chesnut, where did you get that graph from? Can you give the reference. This is VERY interesting and I'd like to see the source if possible. I've been told by a guy that OA kicks the buts out of mites but only hurts the bees. He said that OA does set the bees back slightly, but they are able to build up so much faster in the spring because the mites are gone.


----------



## jmgi

delber said:


> He said that OA does set the bees back slightly, but they are able to build up so much faster in the spring because the mites are gone.


In what way does it set them back, really just curious because I have read that too, but nobody ever explains why?


----------



## Oldtimer

If ingested it can harm or kill bees, young larvae are especially susceptible. This is much more likely or in fact certain, if dribbled over the bees mixed with sugar water, than if vaporised into the hive.


----------



## Saltybee

What is not said in the graph is more interesting to me. It is not mites in hive (in comb or running loose) it is not bees in stages. Lacking context to me.


----------



## jmgi

So the vapor basically condenses on everything inside the hive, the bees, the queen, the eggs, the larvae, the wax, the wood, the mites, the shb, everything. And it returns back into a crystalline form. How is the crystalline residue dealt with at that point by the bees, or do they? It can't just disappear on its own into the air like formic does.


----------



## crofter

Oxalic acid crystals absorb moisture from the air quite readily even when they are in sugar sized granules before vaporization. The deposits from the vaporization would result in micro crystals that would combine quite quickly with hive moisture, would they not?


----------



## snl

jmgi said:


> In what way does it set them back, really just curious because I have read that too, but nobody ever explains why?


OA dribble sets the bees back because they ingest it (see Randy Oliver's website on this)....... OAV does no harm to the bees.....


----------



## Saltybee

....OAV does no (known) harm to the bees....


----------



## jmgi

Saltybee said:


> ....OAV does no (known) harm to the bees....


Now see, this is the real issue as I see it, and I know that I'm not alone on this. I would expect there is some ongoing research by someone in a responsible position as to the "real" effects of OAV on the ecology of the hive in general, no? I understand that the ultimate answer, if it ever comes down, may take some time to get right. As for me in the meantime, I am desperate for a solution to keeping hives alive long term. I have not ever treated with anything, and am currently testing out small cell/natural cell and resistant genetics. Everyone looks at the T/TF issue differently, and what each person can live with in their own skin. I honestly would consider using OAV if I could get trustworthy assurances in terms of research or studies that OAV causes the very minimal harm to the whole ecology of the hive. As of now, I still have some unanswered quesions.


----------



## Oldtimer

Ask away, somebody might know.


----------



## snl

jmgi said:


> As of now, I still have some unanswered quesitons.


As OT said, "Ask away..........somebody may know."

What I do know from experience, is that it does no visible known harm to the queen and brood. I've used it it all stages of brood, many times and the brood develops and hatches and the queen lays eggs in those same cells (again) and that brood hatches and so on. From what I see, any harm that may have occurred using OAV is quickly remedied.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

jmgi said:


> I understand that the ultimate answer, if it ever comes down, may take some time to get right. As for me in the meantime, I am desperate for a solution to keeping hives alive long term.


Until a complete report becomes available at some point in the future, consider trying an experiment on your own. Continue to develop your TF yard each year, but at another location set up a few hives and treat them with OA. 

In a few years you can compare the two and evaluate on your own terms. You may be surprised at the results you get. If you do end up with surviving TF bees, discontinue the OA and expand the genetics to the other yard. No harm done.


----------



## Saltybee

From all observable signs OA works and mites kill. I just do not believe that OA is totally damage free either.


----------



## jmgi

I don't know how long OAV has been used in this country at the rate it is being currently used, I have read that it was used in Europe and other places for about ten years now, is that correct? I know that it has been approved for use on bees over there, as opposed to over here where it is an off label use. Is there anyone here who has used it long term, lets say minimum of three or preferably 4-5 seasons on the same hives?


----------



## jmgi

Saltybee said:


> From all observable signs OA works and mites kill. I just do not believe that OA is totally damage free either.


Oh, I don't question that it is very effective at killing mites, I'm hearing it all the time.


----------



## jmgi

MikeG, if I did that experiment right now with the state of my bees being what they are, I don't doubt that the yard treated with OAV would show better viability. But on the other hand, I am not yet at the point of TF with my current bees that I want to be, possibly in a couple years I could conduct a more fair side by side experiment.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

jmgi said:


> lets say minimum of three or preferably 4-5 seasons on the same hives?


I started about 2006 ?? Somewhere around there.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

The bar for me is live, healthy bees in the spring. Damage or not, that's my goal.


----------



## jmgi

Mike Gillmore said:


> I started about 2006 ?? Somewhere around there.


Just so I'm clear on this, you have had the same hives continuously living since 2006 that were treated with OAV? Did you have to treat those same hives every year, or were there some years that didn't require treatment? John


----------



## beekuk

I first used it 12 years ago. 

There was talk in this thread from 2006 similar to this one.

>>it appears as though the United States is finally beginning to apply it's giant brain to the problem."

I think you are right George. However my fear is that what we will see in the future is the marketing of an "Approved Product" in the U.S.-
"Oxalic Acid Plus" - "Vapor Guard" - "Mite Terminator"
or something along those lines. A tested, approved, blend of Oxalic Acid and some other proven "ingredient" which will sell for $ 35.00/lb. (patented and registered, of course) 

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...d-Use/page2&highlight=oxalic+acid+vapourizing


----------



## Mike Gillmore

jmgi said:


> Just so I'm clear on this, you have had the same hives continuously living since 2006 that were treated with OAV? Did you have to treat those same hives every year, or were there some years that didn't require treatment? John


When I finally converted most of my comb to SC or natural cell I tried to go TF one year and lost almost all of my colonies. Other than that I see an average of about 20% losses each year with OAV, and much of that is beekeeper error.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

bekuk,
Thanks for the trip down memory lane. That was an interesting group of characters back then, including me.


----------



## beekuk

Mike Gillmore said:


> bekuk,
> Thanks for the trip down memory lane. That was an interesting group of characters back then, including me.


I thought the same Mike, including Finman in the middle of it as well.


----------



## jmgi

Mike Gillmore said:


> When I finally converted most of my comb to SC or natural cell I tried to go TF one year and lost almost all of my colonies. Other than that I see an average of about 20% losses each year with OAV, and much of that is beekeeper error.


Ok, so you lost most colonies the year you went TF, but what about the last question I had....how many colonies have survived continuously since 2006, and did you treat them every year since then, or were there years you didn't have to treat with OAV?

On your 20% loss average, you say beekeeper error, is that error related to the treatments themselves, such as improper timing of treatments, or something else not related to treatments? Sorry to be so persistent, but just want to get all the facts I can. John


----------



## Mike Gillmore

jmgi, Sorry, I've been a bit vague. I vaporize all my colonies every year now. I monitor drone brood and mite drops on my trays throughout the summer, and by fall the mite counts are always elevated to undesirable levels. Three treatments, one week apart, usually starting the second half of August. This is just before the fall flow so I'm sure any residue is long gone before they begin storing their winter honey. Then one more treatment for each colony between Thanksgiving and Christmas. None needed in spring or summer.

I've never detected any harmful effects on the bees from vaporizing, although I'm sure there has to be some slight measure of temporary negative impact that I can't see, either on the bees or the hive environment. I've never lost any colonies due to vaporizing. In fact, just the opposite. I've noticed on occasions that colonies with heavy mite loads seem to really perk up after the treatments are completed. It's like new life was breathed into the colony. 

I don't really know how many colonies have survived continuously following the year I had the high losses. I'm constantly splitting, combining and moving hives around. Looking at my notes I see there are a few at one of my yards which have been continuous since 2009. I've been using them for splits and requeening. I should probably keep better records, I know.

Most of my losses are due to my own negligence ... not enough stores for winter, trying to keep dink hives with poor laying queens over winter, etc. Some losses are simply random, such as clusters becoming stranded away from stores and starving. 

Please know that I am not trying to convince anyone to follow this routine, and I have no personal interest in promoting any products related to vaporizing. I am just sharing my experience and relating how it's working for me. It's certainly not for everyone. When I first got back into beekeeping in 2003 or 2004, after a long break from beekeeping in the 80's, I initially tried almost everything out there. Sugar Dusting, Formic Acid, Thymol FGMO Fogging. It was a very frustrating period of time for me experimenting with all the different approaches to controlling mites. I've settled on this method because it is cheap, safe for the applicator if applied properly, effective but not too rough on the bees, can be used in a wide range of ambient temperatures, and is very predictable. Call me lazy, but I like easy.


----------



## jmgi

Mike, thanks for the time, that's exactly what I was looking for. John


----------



## JWChesnut

delber said:


> JW Chesnut, where did you get that graph from? Can you give the reference. This is VERY interesting and I'd like to see the source if possible. I've been told by a guy that OA kicks the buts out of mites but only hurts the bees. He said that OA does set the bees back slightly, but they are able to build up so much faster in the spring because the mites are gone.


Sorry, didn't cite.

Apidologie 41 (2010) 643–653 Available online at:
DOI: 10.1051/apido/2010029

*The effect of different concentrations of oxalic acid
in aqueous and sucrose solution on Varroa mites and honey
bees**
Kalle Toomemaa, Ants-Johannes Martin, Ingrid H. Williams
Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 1A Kreutzwaldi St,
51014 Tartu, Estonia


The Nebraska thesis by Aliano should be read as well, very similar findings:
10-1-2006
*Acute Contact Toxicity of Oxalic Acid to Varroa
destructor (Acari: Varroidae) and Their Apis mellifera
(Hymenoptera: Apidae) Hosts in Laboratory
Bioassays*
Nicholas P. Aliano
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologyfacpub

My own experience is: I killed a hive in 24 hours by doubling the OAV dose to 4 grams. (2 capfuls instead of 1 capful)

I believe I may have weakened queens this November with a OA dribble.


----------



## Flyer Jim

beekuk said:


> I first used it 12 years ago.
> 
> There was talk in this thread from 2006 similar to this one.
> 
> http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...d-Use/page2&highlight=oxalic+acid+vapourizing


If you read page 4 you will see that I was trying oa at that time, just testing it. I only had about 50 hives then, 500 +/_ now and still testing. Same way every year, when I find out if it works I'll let you know. 



Mike Gillmore said:


> bekuk,
> Thanks for the trip down memory lane. That was an interesting group of characters back then, including me.


 What do you mean characters?


----------



## jmgi

Flyer Jim said:


> If you read page 4 you will see that I was trying oa at that time, just testing it. I only had about 50 hives then, 500 +/_ now and still testing. Same way every year, when I find out if it works I'll let you know.


Its been that long and you still don't know if its working?:scratch:


----------



## beemandan

jmgi said:


> Its been that long and you still don't know if its working?:scratch:


I think you missed the smiley face.


----------



## jmgi

Ya I missed it!


----------



## shinbone

JWChesnut said:


> I believe I may have weakened queens this November with a OA dribble.


Just curious . . . Why are you still dribbling OA when it is well known that vaporization is safer for the bees, faster to apply, and more effective? Are you worried about the potential health effects to yourself if you breath the vapor? Or air temp at time of application? Don't want to pay for a vaporizer?


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

I'm not JWChestnut, but I can tell you why I still use the dribble--a partner with COPD. We will NEVER risk vaporizing. A small wind shift could easily kill him. Which is why I am grateful to find a product that can be used in a variety of ways and at different times. This way we get to keep on keeping our bees. I'll bet there are others out there in the same boat we are and for us, the dribble is the best possible solution.

HTH

Rusty


----------



## shinbone

Rusty - Interesting to know. Thanks.


----------



## Dominic

Rusty Hills Farm said:


> I'm not JWChestnut, but I can tell you why I still use the dribble--a partner with COPD. We will NEVER risk vaporizing. A small wind shift could easily kill him. Which is why I am grateful to find a product that can be used in a variety of ways and at different times. This way we get to keep on keeping our bees. I'll bet there are others out there in the same boat we are and for us, the dribble is the best possible solution.
> 
> HTH
> 
> Rusty


How could wind have any impact at all, considering you have to seal the hive when vaporizing...?

Looking up the internet, the only mentions of wind are for the beekeeper's safety. I personally use a full-face mask with cartridges for organic acids, so I don't think wind is much of a concern there. There was only 1 mention of risks associated with OA vaporization and wind, and it was because some guy made his own flamethrower-style vaporizer and put his hive on fire. None of the commercial vaporizers I ever saw used open flames. Even the DIY models I saw never did. Why on earth would you want to put a fire inside your wooden hive? It's begging for trouble, and has absolutely nothing to do with the safety of OA vaporization.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

From Randy Oliver's site:



> Airborne Exposure Limit, oxalic acid: 2 mg/m3 (STEL). The usual vaporized dose per colony is 2 grams. If half that amount actually vaporized, it could put 500 cubic meters of air (volume of a 2000 sq. ft. house) above the Threshold Limit Value for a 15-minute exposure! The same value for formic acid is 18.8 mg/m3—which means that vaporized oxalic is nine times as deadly at the same concentration. I vaporized a bit out back, then walked downwind and took a whiff from the cloud. I’ll tell you, it’s not something you want to inhale—I nearly coughed my guts out!


Once I read this I knew there was no way we would ever risk it. So, no, I have never vaporized and likely never will. I just figure that folks with asthma and COPD are lucky to have another method (the dribble) that works well. Yes, it IS a bit harder on the bees, but better harder on them than on someone with compromised lungs. 

JMO

Rusty


----------



## beekuk

Vaporizing oxalic, a safe method for the user.
At bottom of page in link. http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/imkerei/00316/00329/02081/index.html?lang=en 

Result: All measurements clearly underneath exposure-limit

Evaluation of data led to a clear result: None of the 20 participating
beekeepers reached even half the exposure-limit of 1.0 mg/rn3. (tab. 1). The
average value of the 10 measurements on evaporation procedure was 0.23
mg/rn3, the average value of the 10 measurements on spraying procedure was
0.22 mg/rn3. There was no significant difference between both methods (fig.
1).

To better comprehend these results we must briefly concern ourselves with
the definition of the exposure- limit (MAK-Wert): The exposure-limit is in
such a way selected that for an employee no health damage is to be expected
if he stays 8 hours a day during a working life time at working places at
which the alr concentration of the respective hazardous substance doesn't
exceed the exposure-limit [4].

Thus, based upon the presented data, a commercial apiarist could use oxalic
acid treatments during the whole year 40 hours a week without damaging his
health.

Meaning of the results to apiarist's practice With evaporation- and
spraying-procedure of oxalic acid, beekeepers have possibilities of
treatment against varroatosis whose effectiveness and bee compatibility have
already convincingly been proven [11]. However, there were concerns that in
particular the evaporation procedure was injurious to user's health.

Overcautious scientists therefore warned about evaporating oxalic acid or
recommended preventive measures which made the procedure unpractical, e.g.
wearing ABC protection equipment. The presented study dispelled reservations
against both procedures concerning possible health risks, appropriate
application presupposed. 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...gIGoCw&usg=AFQjCNGxdZ6Nc-z1-3wxm4ZLRzRFY-15TQ
http://tinyurl.com/yaxszga



http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/files/__www.mellifera.de_engl2.pdf


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

It all sounds good. But. Honestly now. If your partner slept each night wearing oxygen because of compromised lungs....would you risk it? Would you really? Especially knowing there are other methods available that have worked very successfully for you in previous years?

This may all be moot anyhow. We did not need to treat this year since introducing VSH genetics into our hives. If we continue the process and it works as well as this year, we may not have to treat at all again this new season. Meanwhile we still have this OA weapon in our arsenal if it IS needed.

Rusty


----------



## clyderoad

Rusty Hills Farm said:


> It all sounds good. But. Honestly now. If your partner slept each night wearing oxygen because of compromised lungs....would you risk it? Would you really? Especially knowing there are other methods available that have worked very successfully for you in previous years?
> 
> This may all be moot anyhow. We did not need to treat this year since introducing VSH genetics into our hives. If we continue the process and it works as well as this year, we may not have to treat at all again this new season. Meanwhile we still have this OA weapon in our arsenal if it IS needed.
> 
> Rusty


You have to do what is comfortable for you to do, nothing else matters. I see no need to explain or defend yourself.
Heck, if you were uncomfortable with all the treatments and you have to go buy new bees every year just so you can continue keeping them then so be it.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

Clyderoad, thank you for that! I got myself embroiled when all I was trying to say is that for folks with serious lung problems, there are solutions that will work for you, too. Really, that's all. I have been a proponent of OA for a few years now. The stuff works.

Thanks for understanding!



Rusty


----------



## clyderoad

Your welcome Rusty.
Wasn't hard for me to understand.


----------



## shinbone

clyderoad said:


> You have to do what is comfortable for you to do, nothing else matters.


+1

Fortunately, I don't have any lung health issues to worry about. I have found that using my lit smoker to show the wind direction is perfect for avoiding OA fumes by standing upwind.


----------



## beemandan

I've inadvertently gotten downwind and inhaled an amount so small that you couldn't see it....and was twenty feet from the hive. And it took my breath away. I wouldn't risk it either with anyone who was compromised already.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Uh oh!  Here is a list of items that are _exempt _under FIFRA. _Sugar _is *not *on the list.
> 
> 
> It would appear that if sugar is used to kill insects, it indeed is a *regulated pesticide*. :lookout:


Now this is an awesome attempt at misdirection. My response is exercise a little common sense wood bleach VS> Sugar which one can I eat without DEATH!.......Wood Bleach ILLEGAL VS. Sugar NOT ILLEGAL. 

For the average intelligence person this is called a NO BRAINER!

I rest my case now.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Well, Duncan, a little understanding is in order. With FIFRA, your *intention *to use a substance to _*kill pests*_ is very important. It is perfectly legal to bleach wood with oxalic acid. It is legal to bleach wooden frames and the inside wood of a hive with oxalic acid. However, if you apply oxalic acid inside a hive with the *INTENTION *of _killing pests_, then use of oxalic acid is an off label use and a violation of law.

The fact that sugar is edible to humans is largely irrelevant as to whether it is being _used as a pesticide_. For example, note that diatomaceous earth is an EPA registered pesticide for killing "bed bugs", yet diatomaceous earth is also "food grade" and edible.

When it comes to pesticides, the *intention to kill pests *is critical to determining whether application of that substance is regulated under FIFRA.


----------



## snl

Duncan Thacker said:


> Now this is an awesome attempt at misdirection. My response is exercise a little common sense wood bleach VS> Sugar which one can I eat without DEATH!.......Wood Bleach ILLEGAL VS. Sugar NOT ILLEGAL.


Duncan, whatever will you do or say WHEN OA in any form is approved as a miiticide?


----------



## BeeGhost

Duncan, please tell me your not one of those people that say using OA is illegal there for those that use it are the worst people on earth. You do drive a vehicle dont you? There for you contribute pollutants into the air that makes it harder for people with asthma to breath. Have you had your honey tested to make sure it doesn't contain soda pop or other sugary substitutes other than pure nectar? And remember bees forage around 2 miles from the hive, im sure someone near you drinks soda and puts their cans in the recycle barrel. Did you know that these E-cigarettes that people use to help to quit smoking are not FDA approved, but they are being sold everywhere. Did you know you must label honey with the saying that do not feed to infants under one year of age because of some virus (skipped my mind) yet it's ok for infants to have spinach which was found to be contaminated with ecoli in recent years? 

My point is this, just because the government says this is bad for you doesnt mean it really is ( the bad rap on eggs comes to mind) and that what they say is good for you isnt necessarily good for you after all ( some recalled pharmaceuticals come to mind). The government is run on monetary dividends, the more you can line their pockets the better chance you have of getting something "approved". Trust me, if I lived and died by following the governments rules, i would live in a bubble........then again thats a confined space and would need proper PPE as regulated by OSHA.


----------



## Daniel Y

JWChesnut said:


> My own experience is: I killed a hive in 24 hours by doubling the OAV dose to 4 grams. (2 capfuls instead of 1 capful)
> 
> I believe I may have weakened queens this November with a OA dribble.


Interesting. I double the dosage when treating any hive with two boxes and never seen a problem. I have not double the dosage for a single box. Where you checking to see if a double dose would harm the bees or ???

What indications have you been able to see that queens treated last November would be weakened? Has that evidence been recent. If so what causes you to attribute the situation to OA?

For me there are simply far to many other possible causes of a queen doing poorly for me to assume much of anything. I will say that the queen that did the best last spring seems to be outdoing all other hives at this time. She has the most number of frames of brood and that hive has been the first to have space added to it this year.

That to me is actually a disappointment because it indicates I managed to do nothing last year to improve my stock directly. I was sort of hoping to find her a little further down the list this spring. Grand hope was to find her no better than mid grade. Also that none of her daughters are keeping pace with her is a bit of a let down.

It is a bit difficult to evaluate good better and best when no real numbers are offered as to quality of queens. Given I am looking for queens that can produce at their peak 14 frames of brood and this one is already half way there. Maybe I already have as good as it gets.


----------



## Daniel Y

BeeGhost said:


> Trust me, if I lived and died by following the governments rules, i would live in a bubble........then again thats a confined space and would need proper PPE as regulated by OSHA.


Now that was funny.


----------



## Bob J

What masks do you use when applying OAV and how well have you found that they work?


----------



## snl

Bob J said:


> What masks do you use when applying OAV and how well have you found that they work?


Use one that is rated "N95" They work just fine and you can find them on Ebay cheap...


----------



## Bob J

snl said:


> Use one that is rated "N95" They work just fine and you can find them on Ebay cheap...


Awesome! Much appreciated! :thumbsup:


----------



## mitchgobears

In addition to a mask, as an eye doctor, I would recommend a chemical safety mask with eye protection (similar to a gas mask). Oxalic acid is an irritant to mucus membranes which includes upper respiratory tract and eyes. Protective eyewear can protect you from direct contact but will not protect you from vapor. While it may sound like overkill and be more costly, it isn't worth taking the risk. Sorry, if this has already been addressed, I didn't read through the entire thread.


----------



## Bob J

mitchgobears said:


> In addition to a mask, as an eye doctor, I would recommend a chemical safety mask with eye protection (similar to a gas mask). Oxalic acid is an irritant to mucus membranes which includes upper respiratory tract and eyes. Protective eyewear can protect you from direct contact but will not protect you from vapor. While it may sound like overkill and be more costly, it isn't worth taking the risk. Sorry, if this has already been addressed, I didn't read through the entire thread.


Thanks Mitchgobears...... Do you think a pair of competition swimming goggles would be adequate?

Swimming goggles


----------



## mitchgobears

Anything that "seals" around the eyes and does not allow gas exchange should work. I don't know which would be more unnerving: seeing someone work their hives with an Israeli gas mask, or with a paper mask and swim goggles? Both scenarios are picture worthy!


----------



## Bob J

mitchgobears said:


> Anything that "seals" around the eyes and does not allow gas exchange should work. I don't know which would be more unnerving: seeing someone work their hives with an Israeli gas mask, or with a paper mask and swim goggles? Both scenarios are picture worthy!


LOL! Indeed!


----------



## beekuk

mitchgobears said:


> While it may sound like overkill and be more costly, it isn't worth taking the risk. Sorry, if this has already been addressed, I didn't read through the entire thread.


You can buy the type used by the military from e bay and army surplus stores, among other places, they are not very expensive, well made, and give good protection.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

beekuk said:


> You can buy the type used by the military from e bay and army surplus stores, among other places, they are not very expensive, well made, and give good protection.


Once again "Why not use OA?" Because I have to think about buying a military grade GAS MASK. 

Spent many hours in NBC gear in some pretty austere environments.......NOT MY IDEA OF FUN.

NBC= Nuclear, Chemical, Biological protection gear.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

Duncan Thacker said:


> Spent many hours in NBC gear in some pretty austere environments.......NOT MY IDEA OF FUN.
> 
> NBC= Nuclear, Chemical, Biological protection gear.


And you put OA vaporization in the same group ... :lpf:

Jeez, you guys are making this waaaay too complicated. Either stand upwind, or use a respirator. Good grief, it's not Chernobyl, just use common sense.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

Your first paragraph is spot on. The following paragraphs make no sense as Sugar was a FOOD FIRST and shaking it on bees IS HARMLESS. Talcum powder can kill you too if enough is ingested but mothers all over the world powder babies butts! Pool players use it on their hands and its great on a problem deck of cards All harmless. Making comparisons does not change the fact that using Wood bleach and toilet cleaner in a food product IS illegal, immoral and unethical. 

Continue to try to change is spots and my response will be the same every time because you can't argue it when you have NO BASIS for your argument.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

Mike Gillmore said:


> And you put OA vaporization in the same group ... :lpf:
> 
> Jeez, you guys are making this waaaay too complicated. Either stand upwind, or use a respirator. Good grief, it's not Chernobyl, just use common sense.


Common sense would lead a person of normal intelligence to opt for safer alternatives. Don't ask me to repeat myself on those alternatives. I already given you LEGAL SAFER methods.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

I hear ya, the safer "ineffective" alternative methods. There is no need to repeat yourself. I think everyone has already figured it out.


----------



## beekuk

Duncan Thacker said:


> Spent many hours in NBC gear in some pretty austere environments.......NOT MY IDEA OF FUN.


Did this gear you spent many hours in leak by any chance?


----------



## Duncan Thacker

snl said:


> Duncan, whatever will you do or say WHEN OA in any form is approved as a miiticide?


Wait till it runs its course and hits the dead end its destined to do. Pray unethical beeks don't "mix a little of this OA product and a little of that OA product" looking for the silver bullet that does not exist anyway.

However there are many of us that will continue to fight the good fight against it.

We don't have the financial interests in selling equipment to vaporize OA that you do.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

beekuk said:


> Did this gear you spent many hours in leak by any chance?


A professional soldier does not let gear our life depends on "leak" we do regular maintenance to ensure we are combat effective at all times. If that don't answer it for you ...I am still here so NO.


----------



## beekuk

Could of had a tinsy winsy leak at some point, did you have a beard at the time.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

Mike Gillmore said:


> I hear ya, the safer "ineffective" alternative methods. There is no need to repeat yourself. I think everyone has already figured it out.


If everyone already figured it out they would not be asking what kind of PPE to use. 

I Will have to go through forum rules again its been since 2001 last time I read them but I did think posting illegal, unethical methods was against the rules.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

beekuk said:


> Could of had a tinsy winsy leak at some point, did you have a beard at the time.


If you do your due diligence you would know that's impossible


----------



## Mike Gillmore

> I Will have to go through forum rules again its been since 2001 last time I read them but I did think posting illegal, unethical methods was against the rules.


OK, while you're doing that I'm going to settle down in my easy chair and read about the adventures of Don Quixote.


----------



## DPBsbees

Duncan Thacker said:


> I Will have to go through forum rules again its been since 2001 last time I read them but I did think posting illegal, unethical methods was against the rules.


OK, now I have to reply. "Unethical" ? Ever drive 56 mph in 55 mph zone? Ever jaywalk? Spit on the sidewalk? Give me a break. The only one who takes any risk while while using oxalic acid is the applicator, small as it might be.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

DPBsbees said:


> OK, now I have to reply. "Unethical" ? Ever drive 56 mph in 55 mph zone? Ever jaywalk? Spit on the sidewalk? Give me a break. The only one who takes any risk while while using oxalic acid is the applicator, small as it might be.


Nice of you to join the conversation, yes I routinely drive 10 to 20 mph over the limit and everything else you said;however that has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about! Ridiculous comparisons used for ridiculous justifications are just that Ridiculous.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

I have yet to hear ONE justifiable reason to use this garbage in a food product. Just rhetoric and pointless justifications. A criminal act cannot be justified.


----------



## beekuk

Duncan Thacker said:


> Nice of you to join the conversation, yes I routinely drive 10 to 20 mph over the limit and everything else you said


Thought you had respect for the law.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

beekuk said:


> Thought you had respect for the law.


I do, just being honest and if I get caught I will get a ticket just like you. If you want to know more about my habits PM me. This is not the proper forum.


----------



## beekuk

Duncan Thacker said:


> I do, just being honest and if I get caught I will get a ticket just like you.


Lack of due diligence then.
Good to be honest.
Never in much of a rush myself.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

Mike Gillmore said:


> OK, while you're doing that I'm going to settle down in my easy chair and read about the adventures of Don Quixote.


That was good! If protecting people and the environment from unethical food handling is chasing windmills then Charge.

FYI:
Benengeli returns at the end of the novel to tell us that illustrating the demise of chivalry was his main purpose in writing the history of Don Quixote.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

beekuk said:


> Lack of due diligence then.
> Good to be honest.
> Never in much of a rush myself.


Non the less your participation is greatly appreciated. DON'T get me wrong I always keep in the back of my mind to never obliviously dismiss ANYONES opinion, there may be something to learn there.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

FYI:



> Oxalic acid is a poisonous, colorless substance. This article discusses poisoning from swallowing oxalic acid.
> 
> This is for information only and not for use in the treatment or management of an actual poison exposure. If you have an exposure, you should call your local emergency number (such as 911) or a local poison control center at 1-800-222-1222.
> 
> Poisonous Ingredient
> 
> Oxalic acid
> 
> Where Found
> 
> Oxalic acid may be found in some:
> •Anti-rust products
> •Bleaches
> •Metal cleaners
> •Rhubarb leaves
> 
> Note: This list may not be all inclusive.
> 
> Symptoms
> •Abdominal pain
> •Burns and blisters where the acid contacted the skin
> •Collapse
> •Convulsions
> •Kidney problems
> •Low blood pressure
> •Mouth pain
> •Shock
> •Throat pain
> •Tremors
> •Vomiting
> •Weak pulse
> 
> Home Care
> 
> Seek immediate medical help. DO NOT make a person throw up unless told to do so by Poison Control or a health care professional.
> 
> If the chemical was swallowed, immediately give the person water or milk, unless instructed otherwise by a health care provider. DO NOT give water or milk if the patient is having symptoms (such as vomiting, convulsions, or a decreased level of alertness) that make it hard to swallow.
> 
> Before Calling Emergency
> 
> Determine the following information:
> •Patient's age, weight, and condition
> •Name of the product (ingredients and strengths, if known)
> •Time it was swallowed
> •Amount swallowed
> 
> Poison Control
> 
> In the United States, call 1-800-222-1222 to speak with a local poison control center. This hotline number will let you talk to experts in poisoning. They will give you further instructions.
> 
> This is a free and confidential service. You should call if you have any questions about poisoning or poison prevention. It does NOT need to be an emergency. You can call for any reason, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
> 
> What to Expect at the Emergency Room
> 
> The health care provider will measure and monitor the patient's vital signs, including temperature, pulse, breathing rate, and blood pressure. The patient may receive:
> •Blood tests to check for problems and degree of poisoning, including calcium level
> •Breathing support
> •Endoscopy -- camera down the throat to see burns in the esophagus (food pipe) and the stomach
> •Medicines to treat symptoms
> 
> Outlook (Prognosis)
> 
> How well a patient does depends on the amount of poison swallowed, how concentrated the poison is and how quickly treatment was received. The faster a patient gets medical help, the better the chance for recovery.
> 
> Severe damage to the mouth, gastrointestinal tract, or airway may occur and quickly cause death if not treated.
> 
> Update Date: 2/1/2013
> 
> Updated by: Eric Perez, MD, St. Luke's / Roosevelt Hospital Center, NY, NY, and Pegasus Emergency Group (Meadowlands and Hunterdon Medical Centers), NJ. Review provided by VeriMed Healthcare Network. Also reviewed by A.D.A.M. Health Solutions, Ebix, Inc., Editorial Team: David Zieve, MD, MHA, Bethanne Black, Stephanie Slon, and Nissi Wang.


http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002479.htm


----------

