# Anyone using Creosote Bush Smoke for Varroa Mite? Other Organic Treatments?



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Realizing that there is a lot of stuff out there about using creosote bush smoke as the latest health thing, please realize that creosote is generally used because it kills stuff, and it is generally considered bad for people:

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/sites/KerrMcGee/docs/Creosote Health Effects (Tronox).pdf

"Only organic treatments" ... 

Well, to an organic chemist, both formic acid and oxalic acid are naturally-occurring organic chemicals. Of the two, formic acid is volatile and in short order will leave zero residue in the hive. It is highly effective at killing mites. You'll probably object if it was synthesized in a chemical plant, but it is chemically identical to the formic acid in an ant bite. This is an extremely simple molecule, and it only goes together one way, so its not as if you're going to synthesize a frankenform of it. I repeat, with emphasis, highly volatile, zero residue. This is the only treatment for mites that can be applied with the honey supers on. And the volatilty essentially means that applying it gives one last distillation to assure it is pure. Mite Away Quick Strips are the easiest way to apply formic acid.

Oxalic acid is found in small quantities in spinach. There will be some residue left in the hive, but not much.

Creosote is going to leave a residue. I can't imagine deliberately introducing it into a hive from which I hope to harvest honey.

If you take _*all*_ the bees out of the hive and roll them heavily in powdered sugar, that will remove mites, and would be organic. Alas, nobody has been able to effectively control mites by just shaking powdered sugar into a hive. We all wish it would work. We've all tried it. The effect is negligible.


----------



## Labow (Mar 10, 2016)

Thanks for the response Phoebee,

The link you included is for something called coal tar creosote. Not the same as what I would use, which is a plant that you burn. However, as I'm reading more about creosote i'm finding it may be harmful to the bees. I'm trying to find more info. Apparently burning black walnut, cedar, or grapefruit leaves also works, and is safe for the bees. 

And yes, haha, you're correct that I would prefer not to use anything that is synthesized in a plant. Do you need to remove the honey if you use formic acid?


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I have worked as a botanist in the Mojave for many years. Spring flower season campouts formerly involved a creosote bush campfire. You cannot sit in the smoke of those fires without developing a heavy hacking cough that lasts for weeks. A cooking pot we used back in the day, developed a thick bubbling coat of creosote tar. The tar could not be removed, and lasted for years --- so heavy and so thick that after the pot developed a hole in the metal from use and scrubbing inside, it still held water to heat.

Why would anyone want to coat the inside of their beehive with that smoke, when one could use Formic gas that dissipates without a residue and yields 99% effectiveness against Varroa?

The infatuation with "folk cures" makes me wonder for the ability of our culture to sustain real science.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Labow said:


> Thanks for the response Phoebee,
> 
> The link you included is for something called coal tar creosote. Not the same as what I would use, which is a plant that you burn. However, as I'm reading more about creosote i'm finding it may be harmful to the bees. I'm trying to find more info. Apparently burning black walnut, cedar, or grapefruit leaves also works, and is safe for the bees.
> 
> And yes, haha, you're correct that I would prefer not to use anything that is synthesized in a plant. Do you need to remove the honey if you use formic acid?


If using synthetic formic acid with honey present bothers your organic sensibilities, you may certainly remove or block off the supers during the treatment, but it is neither necessary nor required. By the end of the treatment cycle (5-7 days) the formic acid is so completely gone you would be hard-pressed to detect it by anything less than the most sensitive analytical instruments.

Of the treatments proven to be effective, and with your priorities, I don't see a better option than formic acid.

If you want to try other forms of smoke, please cross-check your information and make sure the treatment is proven to work by somebody not blowing stardust and rainbows. Then, when you try it, prove it works by counting the remaining mite load. And if it works, report it proudly here.

As for going with no treatment at all, a cadre within BeeSource is avidly pursuing treatment free, and I follow their progress eagerly. I hope they make it. The line of bees we raise is supposed to be close to being able to do it. But we treat for now. If the TF crowd can succeed, I would say that would beat burning stuff to produce toxic smoke. The main advice I can give on this is, if you are not starting with bees known to survive treatment free, you should expect a tragic failure. 

If you don't want something chemically processed, it is not clear to me that burning wood to produce toxins is where you want to go. Picture burning something like mountain laurel. Its organic enough. But some Indian tribes used to make a tea with it that you drank when tired of living ... a suicide potion. Burning that wood might be organic but it would also be performing uncontrolled chemistry experiments starting from a known deadly poison. Not on any honey we make!


----------



## Kcnc1 (Mar 31, 2017)

Viper venom is organic as is pufferfish toxin and hemlock. Most antibiotics are not naturally occurring.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

The whole "organic" movement is a con game for the uneducated. Amatraz is organic as can be. Anyone who say it is not organic is simply ignorant. People do not want to use something made in a plant then they talk about using creosote smoke. Is the creosote bush not a plant? In fact the most toxic chemicals known are made by nature, not by man. What makes formic acid good? It kills a lot of bees and brood and sometimes even kills the queen. It is unsafe to breath the fumes and if you breath much of them you will regret it. It will eat holes in your skin. And this is considered a more desirable chemical to treat mites than other choices that are more effective at killing mites, far less toxic to the applicator do far less damage to the bees and leave no detectable residues in the honey!


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

Richard Cryberg said:


> The whole "organic" movement is a con game for the uneducated.


Isn't that opinion? One could make the case that the opinion that much of the "modern science" movement is a big con game for the foolish.



Richard Cryberg said:


> Amatraz is organic as can be. Anyone who say it is not organic is simply ignorant.


Seems that dismisses a lot of people as ignorant.



Richard Cryberg said:


> People do not want to use something made in a plant then they talk about using creosote smoke. Is the creosote bush not a plant? In fact the most toxic chemicals known are made by nature, not by man.


Isn't that a bit misleading? Man has never made something that wasn't already. We always work with pre-created materials to make whatever we are making.
While *some* of the most toxic chemicals are *in* creation, they are not necessarily toxic in their natural states. Such as Chlorine. Just a tine amount of chlorine gas can kill. Chlorine is only found in compounds naturally though - we eat it every day as table salt (i.e. chlorine combined with metal sodium). Man has extracted it though.



Richard Cryberg said:


> What makes formic acid good? It kills a lot of bees and brood and sometimes even kills the queen. It is unsafe to breath the fumes and if you breath much of them you will regret it. It will eat holes in your skin. And this is considered a more desirable chemical to treat mites than other choices that are more effective at killing mites, far less toxic to the applicator do far less damage to the bees and leave no detectable residues in the honey!


I would be very interested in hearing of these treatments since I would be happy to use a product that leaves no residue, is so harmless to both the applicator and the bees while being highly deadly to the mites.


----------



## dudelt (Mar 18, 2013)

Take Phoebe's advice and use formic acid (Mite Away Quick Strips also known as MAQS) or oxalic acid. Both are considered organic but neither is really user friendly. When you open the package of MAQS without a respirator for acid use, your lungs and nose will let you know it. Oxalic acid vapor (also known as OAV) also requires a respirator and again, if you get a wiff of it, you will know it really quickly. This late in the season, I would recommend the OAV. There is less chance of killing the queen or brood, both of which you need right now to get ready for winter. The best advice I can give right now is to contact a local beekeeping club and ask for help with getting the hive vaporized. Vaporizers are not cheap and you are running out of time.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

dudelt said:


> Take Phoebe's advice and use formic acid (Mite Away Quick Strips also known as MAQS) or oxalic acid. Both are considered organic but neither is really user friendly. When you open the package of MAQS without a respirator for acid use, your lungs and nose will let you know it. Oxalic acid vapor (also known as OAV) also requires a respirator and again, if you get a wiff of it, you will know it really quickly. This late in the season, I would recommend the OAV. There is less chance of killing the queen or brood, both of which you need right now to get ready for winter. The best advice I can give right now is to contact a local beekeeping club and ask for help with getting the hive vaporized. Vaporizers are not cheap and you are running out of time.


Very good advise.
I´m tf but organic working beekeepers here with a certificate use formic acid in summer and oxalic acid in winter. 
Put off the honey supers because otherwise you have to use a higher acid level. Formic acid works only with a special temperature.
If you use it with low temperature the liquid acid must be 85% which will kill much brood and perhaps the queen.
MAQs I don´t know about, here the treatments are done mostly with liquid acid. If the acid is cold ( fridge) before putting it into the hive it´s not as dangerous.

This time of year and depending on your local climate an oa vaporizer used longtime would be the solution.
If you want to have the same results with sugar shakes you have to do at least ten in a row, one every second day. It´s better to do those once every 2-3 weeks over the year starting in spring before virus spreads too much.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

SiWolKe said:


> MAQs I don´t know about, here the treatments are done mostly with liquid acid. If the acid is cold ( fridge) before putting it into the hive it´s not as dangerous.


Mite Away Quick Strips (MAQS) is a commercial product available in the US. It is absorbent gel strips saturated with a measured dose of 50% formic acid, sold in sealed pouches. It is far more expensive than using formic acid solution, but there is no mixing of nasty acid required.

I've used both. I presume your friends who treat do something like I've done, buy concentrated formic acid by the liter, and dilute it using volumetric cylinders, with a hydrometer to determine the exact concentration. The application method I use is to soak a measured dose of 50% FA onto an absorbent pad that goes into the hive right above the broodnest, where the temperature is just right for vaporizing FA at a controlled rate.

What we lack on this side of the pond is really good dosing information. The West Virginia University method I have used is rather hand-wavy about the dosing. It would be better if we had a table of the correct dose per unit volume of hive, and a way to look up the dose based on the number and size of supers present. Do you have better data than I have been using?

MAQS has recently put instructions for half-dose treatments into their literature. These should be gentler on the bees, but may need repeating in a few months. I went with that in August because our mite loads were very low, and we intend to do OAV when broodless this winter.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Phoebee,
I have only the experience of bee class. We used 65% Formic acid solution and our teacher just put an absorbent pad on top of the brood box and used a dose, but this changes with how big your boxes are.
It works not if it´s too cold outside, the you have to use 85% solution, which is very dangerous.
Put both into the sun at your bee yard and heat it up you can be sure your hive is not able to digest this.

Some here on the forum from europe will have better knowledge.
I believe we have MAQS too but I´ve never seen them used. Might be better. 

There are so many problems with formic acid ( queen loss, brood killed) that people start to abandon this method and use oxalic acids long time vaporizing.
Or thymol. Or artificial brood brake. Or caging the queen. Or combine these methods.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> Amatraz is organic as can be. Anyone who say it is not organic is simply ignorant.


I disagree
from a chemical make up stand point perhaps..
But that's not what people are talking about when the word organic is used in a agricultural setting.
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP-Synthetic-NonSynthetic-DecisionTree.pdf


----------



## Kcnc1 (Mar 31, 2017)

Amatraz is synthesized and not naturally occurring in plants or animals. Therefore not organic. But organic does not equal safe and non organic does not equal harmful


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

msl said:


> I disagree
> from a chemical make up stand point perhaps..
> But that's not what people are talking about when the word organic is used in a agricultural setting.
> https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP-Synthetic-NonSynthetic-DecisionTree.pdf


I've wondered what people are talking about when the word organic is used in a agricultural setting, and have come to believe that they don't know what they are taking about although they are sure proud of 'it'. It seems like lifestyle conformity and groupthink. 
The 'decision tree' serves to reinforce the ignorance.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

Kcnc1 said:


> Amatraz is synthesized and not naturally occurring in plants or animals. Therefore not organic. But organic does not equal safe and non organic does not equal harmful


The word organic has meant, for over 200 years, it contains at least one carbon atom and that carbon is not in the form of carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide. Any other use of the word organic should be put in quotes to be proper English as you are using an artificial made up definition different than the correct definition. If something is synthesized or not makes zero difference. The formic acid or oxalic acid used to treat mites are synthetic, not made by nature, therefore according to some are not "organic" because they are manufactured in a chemical production factory. Both clearly are organic. Arsenic oxide on the other hand is made by nature and thus "organic" but not organic. You are 100% correct that "organic" does not equal safe. And, organic does not equal harmful. Amatraz is organic and will always be organic. It is not "organic." The most toxic chemical known is botulism toxin which is both organic and "organic." It has never been made by a chemist as it is so toxic it would be too dangerous to make it.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

clyderoad said:


> I've wondered what people are talking about when the word organic is used in a agricultural setting, and have come to believe that they don't know what they are taking about although they are sure proud of 'it'. It seems like lifestyle conformity and groupthink.
> The 'decision tree' serves to reinforce the ignorance.


I am afraid that is an opinion that just does not seem to match information that is available. Also any scan of encyclopedias, government laws, and dictionaries should make it clear that "organics", as in food/farming, do have definitions and rules.



Richard Cryberg said:


> The word organic has meant, for over 200 years, it contains at least one carbon atom and that carbon is not in the form of carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide. Any other use of the word organic should be put in quotes to be proper English as you are using an artificial made up definition different than the correct definition.


Afraid that is another opinion, and not tied to reasonable information.
You are deciding to only use the definition that pertains to chemistry. I guess the sentence "A baby growing in the mother's womb is an organic process", is not a correct use of the word? According the my dictionary "organic" has 7 definitions and only 1 of those is the chemistry definition.



Richard Cryberg said:


> If something is synthesized or not makes zero difference. The formic acid or oxalic acid used to treat mites are synthetic, not made by nature, therefore according to some are not "organic" because they are manufactured in a chemical production factory. Both clearly are organic. Arsenic oxide on the other hand is made by nature and thus "organic" but not organic. You are 100% correct that "organic" does not equal safe. And, organic does not equal harmful. Amatraz is organic and will always be organic. It is not "organic." The most toxic chemical known is botulism toxin which is both organic and "organic." It has never been made by a chemist as it is so toxic it would be too dangerous to make it.


Again, this is all because you decide to choose/accept only 1 definition of a word. This, sorry to say, is the modern scientific method. Determine the outcome and then start from there.

Botulism is the most toxic chemical? I guess this would be an argument of opinions.
I do not know whether it is manufactured or not, but you may wish to look into Botox which botulism toxin used to relax muscles (therefore make wrinkles disappear).

I have never known "too dangerous" to stop scientists. There have been, is, and will be, many times when they proceeded to do things that they should not have because of the harm it brought to others.


----------



## Labow (Mar 10, 2016)

Whoe...didn't mean to get such a debate going on. Thanks for all of the info

JWChesnut, the story about your pot made me laugh...and is effective. Okay, no creosote. 

Since a couple of people have mentioned removing supers, I should mention that I have Top Bar Hives, and so it's not really possible to remove the honey, or at least not all of it. Therefore, whatever I use would need to be able to be used with the honey left in the hive. When I asked about removing the honey I was more just asking what the norm is. I wasn't sure if it's good practice or not. Sounds like it doesn't matter?

DudeIt, you said "This late in the season, I would recommend the OAV. There is less chance of killing the queen or brood, both of which you need right now to get ready for winter." Do you think OAV is just as effective? Have you had problems in the past with formic acid killing your queen and brood?

SiWolKe, Have you had success with powdered sugar? I've heard that doesn't really work.

Phoebee, have you had any brood loss using the MAQS?

Has anyone ever heard of/used Thymol? Someone in another forum I posted this question in suggested it.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

> SiWolKe, Have you had success with powdered sugar? I've heard that doesn't really work.


Yes, it was successful but I did it too late in year. You must monitor the infestation level and treat with sugar before the DWV appears.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...e-chronicle-of-a-beekeeper-from-South-Germany

# 11

This is a most interesting contribution if you are interested. Thanks Ruth 

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?333480-Treatment-free-Bees&p=1507956#post1507956



> Has anyone ever heard of/used Thymol? Someone in another forum I posted this question in suggested it.


Erik Österlund uses thymol as integrated pest management in his breeding program.

http://elgon.es/resistancebreeding.html


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

the fact you say


> very strict about only using organic treatments


 and alternative treatments and hives says a few things to me 
1st your chasing \ ideals, Formic Acid, Oxlaic Acid treatments ect are not usda "organic", do the the way they are made they are "synthetic" 
What is the difference between 100% ethanol that has been fermented by normal or GMO yeasts, or synthesized? a label?
Don't make your choices based on words that have many meanings to many different people, as DR RC rightly points out there are a lot of scary things that are "organic" 
the whole "buck the system/new wave" thing gets old, the basics are the basics , what works works, "the man"/ "big pharm" is not out to suppress the mite killing


> whatever


 tech and all the beekeepers who came before you were not idiots.

Sure I run KTBHs, Warre's, and langs... I am in recovery of being TF and still I chase mite resistant ferals. 
everything has it place 

#1 on your list do alcohol roll, and KNOW what your mite levels are, from there you can an informed choice as to what it takes to keep your hive alive vs your ideals.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Why not having ideals?
They are not per se wrong and Brian wants to inform himself.

There are a number of failing or successful TF enterprises on this forum described so an intelligent person will have no problem to decide a path.
Everyone is free to make his own decision and need not be ignorant about the consequences.

Have clean honey and wax, for once, would be a goal of reflecting about treatments.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

I do not recall anyone calling anyone "idiots", or any name calling... except of course those who for some reason (ideology, ideals) are ignoring that organic does indeed have a definition and many rules fixed.

I am not picky over organic or non. Still, it makes it hard to speak to people who can not deal with language. It would be like people who are upset because I use the word "kid" for children (i.e. "kids are baby goats!").

I do not know which (if any) treatments are certified organic. Powdered sugar could be (if you use organic sugars).
Powdered sugar does work - BUT, the bees have to be covered (each bee). So delivery is the issue. Dropping the sugar on top of them just isn't good enough (from what I understand and have tried). Blowing it in would probably work better.

Hop Guard is advertised as organic, do not know if it is a loose advertising method or if it is actually.

As for the silly argument over restricting a well defined English word (as done so by dictionaries and encyclopedias and gov. laws), I doubt it is of use to continue. Once some "scientists" have decided something it is rather hard to get them to see the truth.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

We always watch what we want to see, we always listen to what we want to hear.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> Why not having ideals?


because it often leads to blindly following rigid dogma based on someones hazy definition of a word causing people to ignore/dismiss good advice and not make decisions for them self's 

As an example- 


> I would prefer not to use anything that is synthesized in a plant


by USDA standards using beet sugar would be putting a synthetic in a hive and would not be organic, such a scary synthetic that it is.....lol
Putting cane sugar could be organic, even tho the USDA says they are chemically identical. 
Then of coarse they are both "natural" per the FDA and EPA
so make sure you grab the right bag of sugar when you to to treat or feed or you will fall off your "I'm very strict about only using organic treatments" wagon



> Apparently burning black walnut, cedar, or grapefruit leaves also works, and is safe for the bees.


My advice is to put the snake oil aside and walk a proven path, if those things worked EVERYONE would be doing it and online bee shops would be stocking those items.
Its your 1st year, go with what has been proven to work to increase your chances of having bees alive come spring, The standard ways of doing things are a standard for a reason. 
Beekeeping is hard, its harder when you thumb your nose at proven ways and take a walk in the weeds, save the experiments for after you have become an experienced beekeeper. 

Get mite counts for your hives. Having KTBHs limits a lot of your options, research Oxalic Acid Dribble "in case" the counts are high, you could also look in to a Provap 110 but they are pricey


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

Why get so irritated when someone wants to use organic products? What is it to anyone but them?

This thread went off topic because, instead of dealing with the topic as set forth by the poster, it became an argument (of all things) of the word "organic". To the point that it was said there is no true definition for "organic" except that of a chemistry definition. That is blinded by dogma.

Science tends to ignore its mistakes. Science is always praised when something goes right, and when something goes wrong (which is frequent) it is forgotten (usually that is the only time you hear them reference God - "Well, we're not God").

How about - how do you *know* beet sugar and cane sugar are absolutely the same? I realize as far as we understand current chemistry they are the same. Who is to say that tomorrow some "new" test will not prove a difference. How many times have chemicals been declared safe only to have it retracted a few years later as deadly. That is the other problem "science" has, the "we know" complex.

Science is the blinding dogma with the haze definitions. That is why, if I disagree with your science, I am "uneducated" and an idiot.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

> because it often leads to blindly following rigid dogma based on someones hazy definition of a word causing people to ignore/dismiss good advice and not make decisions for them self's


Someone who is new to something follows blindly first but when experience comes this changes. There are some who follow blindly forever because they need to be led or are just convinced to do the right thing, but not all.
Nothing to be angry about. People differ.



> Science is the blinding dogma with the haze definitions.


That comment is interesting because I always thought that religion is like that. There is science pro and science contra concerning a topic, and without such comparisons we would all stay ignorant and there would be no discussion.
It would be "believe" or leave.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> Why get so irritated when someone wants to use organic products? What is it to anyone but them


I have no issue with organic, no mater how you define it. Youtube fad cures is another story, I took the same hard line with OAE/G fogging 


> Someone who is new to something follows blindly first but when experience comes this changes. *snip*
> Nothing to be angry about.


Not angry at all, just trying to give the OP the best chance that the experience will not be empty boxes come spring. He said he is seeing mites, likely means the hives are over run, a few grapefruit leaves in his smoker is unlikely to change that. 
Flip side is yes, a few stern words may not change things either, but I was in the mood to try, and thats why I suggested the OP look in to OAD and see if it was "organic" to them



> how do you *know* beet sugar and cane sugar are absolutely the same?


I don't, and that's not what I said.
I pointed out the same gov agency that says beet sugar is systhnitic also says its chemically the same as nonsystentic sugar


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

SiWolKe said:


> ...
> That comment is interesting because I always thought that religion is like that. There is science pro and science contra concerning a topic, and without such comparisons we would all stay ignorant and there would be no discussion.
> It would be "believe" or leave.


How much investigation have you put into modern science, its methods, and actually how it functions (not how it is desired to function)? (sincerely - not a sarcastic question)

When I try to make a short discussion, I inevitably get the "well, are you saying we can't know what water is", or "planes fly" - I am not saying science can't get some physical/touchable/interact-able things right - but science goes WAY beyond making a rocket. I could make other arguments on the methods and results that would qualify certain science "successes", but there has to be a reasonable effort made to keep a post within acceptable lengths... so the following is shortened up 

People assume science to be abstract and a simply function of "facts" (well, no such thing in science). Reality is (and always has been) scientist are humans with emotions, likes/dislikes, and ideas/teachings they would like furthered (leave out outright greed and corruption for now, which have been revealed at times).
Science is not abstract from the scientists. Since science is an idea/method it only exists in human terms - it reflects human thinking.
The idea of observation, testing, and theory sounds great - but in reality observation, testing, and theories are only as good as the humans can grasp or even imagine. Results reflect the desire of the scientists (whether preconceived or surmised afterwards). I do realize that (in theory) the results *must* be replicable, yet getting the same (or close enough) "result" is not too hard.
If I observe a ball bounce, test, and develop a theory on why and how, if it doesn't fail even once in a million times - what makes me sure it won't fail at some point (after all just about every scientific theory eventually is dropped/changed/or completely overhauled in time). Everything is based on the *human* mind. Remember that even "results" *must* be interpreted, and when interpreted by humans it is simply human reasoning reasoning through human reasoning. It is inescapable with the scientific method.

Most accept that people are faulty (at best), and yet desire to adhere ardently to this method no matter how unprovable its theories, why is that any different than faith in a religion?

The science religion is acquisition of "knowledge" (the God of the religion) (knowledge as defined by the religion, anything that the religion dose not accept is not knowledge). When the "knowledge" becomes obviously wrong, the "knowledge" is changed/adjusted to the current "knowledge". The followers must put complete faith into this religion's methods (after all one can not claim faith in a God Who states one thing, while ardently holding to a faith that states the absolute opposite). Its high priests are the elders who hold the knowledge to teach to the new members. The religious doctrines are the theories that have been composed and held to.
If a part of the doctrine becomes obviously wrong, it is updated with new doctrine (i.e. "knowledge") - but the followers are still expected to hold their faith without wavering in the religion itself. What is that? That is a religion (well some might go even further - but religion is good enough), that is faith. Faith in the "unprovable" (as they themselves state).

Once a person makes a break from that religion and begins to sincerely accept the Truth of God and act on it, the thinking changes - one starts seeing things that they did not notice before about that old religion.

I know this is *way* off the topic, and no doubt will draw mocking and scorn (that is fine, not the first time and I hope not the last). I also doubt this post will last long, hope you can see it first.
I have heard all the "believers" arguments against what I have only touched on here - and yet when I go through an entire discussion with them, their contradictions are apparent (but usually not to them).


----------



## DaisyNJ (Aug 3, 2015)

clyderoad said:


> I've wondered what people are talking about when the word organic is used in a agricultural setting, and have come to believe that they don't know what they are taking about although they are sure proud of 'it'. It seems like lifestyle conformity and groupthink.
> The 'decision tree' serves to reinforce the ignorance.


I wonder what do you think it means ? Surely helps to know what an expert such as yourself think of it.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

MikeJ said:


> I am afraid that is an opinion that just does not seem to match information that is available. Also any scan of encyclopedias, government laws, and dictionaries should make it clear that "organics", as in food/farming, do have definitions and rules.
> 
> Botulism is the most toxic chemical? I guess this would be an argument of opinions.
> I do not know whether it is manufactured or not, but you may wish to look into Botox which botulism toxin used to relax muscles (therefore make wrinkles disappear).


Richard is right on this. You can get a PhD in Organic Chemistry. Organic chemistry is an old profession, and they know exactly what the term means, what an organic chemical is, and what all the reactions are. It is well-established science based on a couple of hundred years of methodical research.

Compare this to the recent "organic" trend. A few decades of use of a hijacked word, with a constant dispute of what, if anything, the word means. For example, I like natural peanut butter (peanuts run thru a blender with perhaps a dash of salt added, but nothing more). I once tried some "organic" peanut butter ... not what I expected. I looked at the rather long ingredients list and was shocked at the amount of stuff that was not peanuts, including hydrogenated palm oil. But from organically-grown palms, I guess. The problem with saying that Richard's view is just "opinion" is that "organic" food is exactly that, a bunch of opinions.

All that said, our garden is pesticide-free, using compost as the preferred fertilizer unless soil tests show a deficit of specific (and inorganic) minerals (we tend to need K and P, and sometimes a pH boost).

We also try to avoid pesticides, particularly around our bees. Especially with recent reports that some of these compounds tend to accumulate in comb. This is one of the big advantages of formic acid to me.

Regarding botulism toxin: Twelve molecules of this stuff can kill you. They attack the nerves controlling breathing preferentially, paralyzing your lungs. The cosmetic applications are done at concentrations approaching zero, applied so that it affects only a small area, where it has a similar paralytic effect. The only dispute I know of regarding the ranking of "most toxic" is that some will say plutonium is more toxic. Turns out that botulinum toxin is far more toxic, and plutonium is just one of the most toxic elements, with polonium outranking it.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

Phoebee:
But that was another opinion, bolstering the last opinion.
I am not quite understanding what your peanut butter had to do with it. Organics does not mean "healthy" or "health food" - it is a process of how it became that product. An organic food can be 100% worse for your health than a non-organic, it depends on what it is. Just like McD burger doesn't help like an apple. (It might be of interest to also know that as science has tampered with our foods, they have decreased greatly in their nutrition values. A modern apple has about 1/3 the nutrition of the old apples - but this is off topic for our off topic discussion)

To deny that the word organic (as in farming/food/a process) is a correct word with a definition means that we need to all revert back to the forms of English spoken in 1817 (i.e. 200 years ago)? Any word that has come in to use, or increased in definitions after that simply is not a real word?

I am really finding these comments amazing (not that I didn't already know how the thinking functioned, but that it is being expressed in this way, which is so easy for non-science minded people to understand). I think if this is the argument then it *proves* my previous post (#28).

I didn't realize that science put so much stock in the idea that the older something was the more accurate it was and should be held on to.
If this is true, then science better wrap it up, because Christianity is about 2000 yrs old, and actually closer to 5k-6k yrs when you take into account that it really is a growth of what is commonly called Judaism (which really is a misnomer considering it was a religion practiced by Israel, not just Judah).


----------



## Ravenseye (Apr 2, 2006)

MikeJ said:


> This thread went off topic because,


Yes, it did. 



DaisyNJ said:


> I wonder what do you think it means ? Surely helps to know what an expert such as yourself think of it.


Careful..... 

There are forums here for this off topic kind of discussion. This forum isn't one of them. Let's get back on track.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

Phoebee said:


> Regarding botulism toxin: Twelve molecules of this stuff can kill you.


No idea if 12 molecules can kill you but it sounds low. For comparison it takes about 10 million molecules of neonics for each neuron in a bees brain to kill a bee. For the record neonics are organic chemicals as they contain carbon.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

That's the number we learned in pathogenic microbiology. Each molecule breaks into smaller ones, and each subunit is a supertoxin on its own. In humans, neurons controlling breathing are targeted, and apparently there are not that many of them. We were told it broke into 5 subunits, but apparently the actual number is 7. However, two of those don't seem to harm humans, but may harm other animals. So those 12 molecules become 60 molecules. It still is a fantastically low dose, but that's where botulinum gets its bad name. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/325451-overview

Apparently, the cosmetic botulinum toxin is one of the A subunits.

Standard treatment for botulism used to be a month in an iron lung. I suspect these days it is a more sophisticated respirator. If you could keep the patient breathing, other systems would work well enough to allow recovery.

Ten million neonic molecules to kill a bee ... and they have less than a million neurons in their brains. Tho' one must ask exactly what they mean by "kill" a bee. Is that outright pesticide death, or is that getting a little stupid and not able to find the hive? Which question you are trying to answer affects the test methodology.


----------



## Planner (Apr 3, 2016)

Phoebe. The so called naturally occurring organic chemicals are highly dangerous to human health when applied in the strengths to kill mites. I assume you were not implying these chemicals are not hazardous to human health. When ever discussing oxalic acid it is best to refer to the warning label. This chemical should not come in contract with the dermis or skin and should not be inhaled or come in contact with the eye. There is too much incorrect information published about naturally occurring chemicals, without advising of the dangerous affects to health.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Labow said:


> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering if anyone has used Creosote Bush smoke to treat their hives for varroa mite? I've heard it works well, and is a safe/organic treatment.
> 
> ...


https://agresearchmag.ars.usda.gov/1997/aug/mitesmoke

Maybe you should use grapefruit leaves and an open varroa mesh floor if you want to try something different than acids or sugar.
But those are used against midges and gnats so maybe the bees will abscond


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Planner said:


> Phoebe. The so called naturally occurring organic chemicals are highly dangerous to human health when applied in the strengths to kill mites. I assume you were not implying these chemicals are not hazardous to human health. When ever discussing oxalic acid it is best to refer to the warning label. This chemical should not come in contract with the dermis or skin and should not be inhaled or come in contact with the eye. There is too much incorrect information published about naturally occurring chemicals, without advising of the dangerous affects to health.


Anyone considering using OAV, FA, etc for mite treatment needs to start with a properly-labeled product. The US government considers these pesticides if used as such, subject to all relevant regulations. And make no mistake, these can hurt you. I read the labels, and also the MSDS for these products.

The catch with using a "natural" or "organic" approach with something like creosote bush is that you're expecting a potent pesticide effect but you're running with zero safety and efficacy guidance. While I have never personally used creosote bush, I found post #4 of this thread by JWChesnut to be especially informative ... " You cannot sit in the smoke of those fires without developing a heavy hacking cough that lasts for weeks." I'm not sure even formic acid would produce symptoms for that long.

We smoke our bees lightly when they need some calming down. I don't mind a bit of oak wood smoke from an occasional campfire. But I also scrub a fair amount of creosote out of the chimney every fall. It occurs naturally and is one of the worst parts of wood smoke.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

(I don't know much about the bush) Is the Creosote bush actually producing smoke *containing* that kind of "creosote"?

Chimney creosote is wood tars (among other substances). You can reduce it in the chimney by making sure your fires are running hotter and using seasoned wood.

Uhh? Since the Creosote bush smoke was being taken internally, I am going to go out on a limb  and suggest that if formic acid is taken internally it can do a bit more than give you a cough for a few weeks.


As for OP's question on organic treatments,
Hop Guard is not advertised as organic (so I doubt it is created through an organic process - since they would definitely tout it if so). It appears to leave a certain amount of residues in the honey/wax. Advertised as "food grade" - whatever "food grade" means when describing a poison (see instructions).

MAQs (which is formic acid) is advertised as organic (strip material is all biodegradable as well). No known amount of residue is left in the honey or wax. It does have temperature restrictions (too hot and it can harm/kill bees/larva/queens - though most report little problems with it).

As for oxalic acid (as far as I know) commercially produced through a non-organic process. Many have stated little to no harm to the bees/queens when used as vaporized (I question this though). OAV only kills phoretic mites (i.e. mites on bees).

MiteZapper is a mechanical attempt to reduce mites. A plastic drone frame. Queens lay drone brood, mites prefer drones, once capped you plug it into a battery and if cooks the larva and mites. Put the frame back in and the bees clear it - starts all over... Problem being, as some posts will show, apparently mites don't prefer drone *enough* to believe this would be effective enough.

Brood brakes are organic  and can be a part of other methods.

Some have claimed success (for at least a while) with powdered sugar (which can be organic). Problem is unless enough mite infested bees can be coated, it is not going to knock them down enough. I used to blow powdered sugar in and it *seemed* to work, but I never made any tests to prove anything with it.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

MikeJ,

Until fairly modern times, creosote (specifically wood-tar creosote) was produced commercially from wood, as a byproduct of making charcoal. When coal started to substitute for wood as a fuel, making coke (the coal equivalent of charcoal) was found to make a reasonable substitute, coal-tar creosote. The coal tar variety is generally thought to be more toxic, but neither one is a treat. Some grades of petroleum can also create it. But in all cases, the original material is from plants.

Everyone who uses wood as a stove or fireplace fuel needs to clean their chimney regularly, otherwise creosote will build up and may allow chimney fires to start.

Bottom line, yes, creosote bush produces creosote.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

Phoebee said:


> MikeJ,
> 
> Until fairly modern times, creosote (specifically wood-tar creosote) was produced commercially from wood, as a byproduct of making charcoal. When coal started to substitute for wood as a fuel, making coke (the coal equivalent of charcoal) was found to make a reasonable substitute, coal-tar creosote. The coal tar variety is generally thought to be more toxic, but neither one is a treat. Some grades of petroleum can also create it. But in all cases, the original material is from plants.
> 
> ...


While I wasn't aware of the history of coal tar vs. wood tar creosote, I do know of the production process (I experimented when I was a teen with producing charcoal and its by-products). It is interesting. If the effects mentioned is the result of the bush's creation of creosote, it must contain a lot of resin.

Fire temps will effect the amounts of creosote in your chimney. Consistent hot fires leave relatively few deposits. In fact you can burn it off (if you have a good chimney) without any problems. But yes, cleaning is safer (I have to get on the roof every year or so and scrub the chimney brush through).


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

From what I have been reading, creosote bush is also called chaparral. It is quite resinous, and smells of creosote even before you do anything to it. But I defer to JWChesnut for any real info on it.

As for maintaining a fire hot enough to prevent creosote from forming in a chimney, so they say. Except that if you're heating your home with it, you can't run a fire that hot continuously and not drive yourself out of the house. In our cabin, damping the stove down at night is needed to keep the fire going, unless you like waking up in the cold. But burning well-seasoned oak, and running hot when I can, once a season seems to keep it under control.


----------



## GoodyFarms (Jul 10, 2016)

Phoebee said:


> Regarding botulism toxin: Twelve molecules of this stuff can kill you.


You've peaked my interest...this seems unlikely small, so I'll do the math.


LD50 inhalation 2 ng/kg (technically 1.3-2.1, but I picked a round number)
Average male 80 kg
160 ng 
Molecular weight 150000 g/mol
Avogadros number...

642,346,666,667 molecules will kill 50% of the population thats exposed. Perhaps someone could die from 12, but unlikely. Its still an incredibly small number.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

An lot of people consume botulism toxins every year, not that many die.

How was this idea of 12 molecules tested?


----------

