# How do I keep wax moths from destroying my stored supers????



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

I'm in a different neck of the woods than you so it may or may not work for you. I extract my supers and leave them standing on end with the frames vertically oriented out in the open. My last extraction is around Labor Day weekend and our first hard freeze is normally sometime in mid November. The sunlight keeps moths from laying in them. As soon as my first hard freeze occurs I stack them and bring them inside for storage. They stay in storage until spring when I put them on respective hives as needed.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

I've been using this for several years and it works great.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...giensis-biological-control-of-wax-moth-larva)


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm (Mar 24, 2010)

x 2 for the BtA

Rusty


----------



## Michael B (Feb 6, 2010)

Yes, BtA

Easy to apply and lasts a very long time. I get mine form ebay under brand name Xentari


----------



## DirtyLittleSecret (Sep 10, 2014)

Xentari via Amazon. Has lots of research, is safe for the bees and human, and works. E-Z-P-Z
Just realize a bag will last you 5 years (shelf life) if stored properly. Goes a loooong ways.


----------



## Barhopper (Mar 5, 2015)

I bought a really big chest freezer and keep it there


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

My beef with the wax moths came up last weekend when we pulled our entire honey harvest ... three deep frames, out of the plastic storage bin for extraction, and found one of them eaten up by the nasty things. BtA may be OK for stored empty comb but I think maybe not for frames of honey.

I've been toying with an option, storing frames in a CO2 atmosphere, which should kill them, but with spotty results. I stuck some moth-infested frames from our swarm trap into a plastic bag and exposed it heavily to CO2 about a month ago. This failed to effect a complete kill. Reading up, I probably did not seal the bag well enough. I should have used it on the stored honey frames but thought they were free of moths when I stored them. I'm still hoping I can use CO2 by properly sealing plastic bins with 80% or more CO2 inside.

This past week I looked up what it would cost to buy a development kit for a CO2 sensor that can measure 5-100% concentration, just to be sure I'm getting the dose above 80% to get a good kill. That would run $229. Then I looked up smaller chest freezers. $150. I've been using CO2 because we don't have a chest freezer at our property with the apiary, but maybe its time to re-think that.


----------



## Ravenseye (Apr 2, 2006)

Well I'm certainly in a different area but here's what I do. Comb removed from the hives are sprayed with BT and then stacked up on the third floor of my barn. Sure, wax moths visit but their lifecycle is truncated. We get (usually) pretty cold weather here and that works to my advantage. However, I can't depend on it (I have wax moth eaten boxes to prove this) so the BT is my primary deterrent. 

On on a completely divergent note, we have a small bat colony living in the barn. We've also been afflicted with the horrible White Nose Syndrome which has decimated the population. When we bought the house we had nearly no wax moth damage. Now, we have to work hard. I believe the decline in the bats has caused an increase in wax moths. 

In in my humble opinion, BT is a simple, relatively inexpensive and easy (for the hobby keeper) application to start with.


----------



## flyin-lowe (May 15, 2014)

A friend of mine said he fills a bottom board with moth ball flakes. He stacks several boxes of frames on the bottom board and puts a lid on for several days. He then takes the boxes off and stores them that way. He said the smell the frames get from the flakes underneath is enough to keep the moths out of them over the winter. 
Is there any downside to this method. I have heard the flakes have a different make up then the moth balls and are not harmful is that the case?


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

My bee buddy says Para-moth works good if you like the idea of using a chemical in there. 

I just let the bees get all the honey out of the cells and then I stack them in our barn with screen on the top and bottom to keep mice out.

Has worked for a decade. If it has beebread then it must go in a freezer or a hive.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Ravenseye said:


> On on a completely divergent note, we have a small bat colony living in the barn. We've also been afflicted with the horrible White Nose Syndrome which has decimated the population. When we bought the house we had nearly no wax moth damage. Now, we have to work hard. I believe the decline in the bats has caused an increase in wax moths.


Per some caver friends who are really concerned about the Little Brown Bats, they wish they could go into the caves with a little athlete's foot powder and dust all the noses of the bats.

We have larger ones living on the cabin and doing fine, but they didn't eat nearly enough wax moths to help. Thinking about it, the swarm trap should have made a dandy bat house but instead turned out to be a wax moth nest.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Buy a small cub van with a cooling unit. Freeze them out one per month , works great.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Ian said:


> Buy a small cub van with a cooling unit. Freeze them out one per month , works great.


I like it.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Ian said:


> Buy a small cub van with a cooling unit. Freeze them bastards out one per month , works great.


BT is easier and cheaper. Just spray the combs as they come out of the extractor and you're done!


----------



## johnbeejohn (Jun 30, 2013)

i stack suppers with lid on top put my old MAQS inside and wrap with shrink wrap works good for me


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

johnbeejohn said:


> i stack suppers with lid on top put my old MAQS inside and wrap with shrink wrap works good for me


Great that it that works well for you, spraying with BT is easier, no shrink wrapping....


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

How you deal with wax moths can vary greatly by location. If you have hard winters then freezing weather and timing are all you really need. if you never have hard winters, then you will need to do other things. One of those is you may be able to leave the supers on a strong hive and let them guard them. Bt is another. What I would NOT do is use paramoth...

http://www.bushfarms.com/beeswaxmoths.htm
http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm#waxmoths


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> How you deal with wax moths can vary greatly by location. If you have hard winters then freezing weather and timing are all you really need. if you never have hard winters, then you will need to do other things. One of those is you may be able to leave the supers on a strong hive and let them guard them. Bt is another. What I would NOT do is use paramoth...
> 
> http://www.bushfarms.com/beeswaxmoths.htm
> http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm#waxmoths


Agreed. There's no way I would use something that smells that bad on my stored extracting supers and brood comb. Maybe I'm wrong, but there must be residue issues with using that stuff.


----------



## dsegrest (May 15, 2014)

Phoebee said:


> My beef with the wax moths came up last weekend when we pulled our entire honey harvest ... three deep frames, out of the plastic storage bin for extraction, and found one of them eaten up by the nasty things. BtA may be OK for stored empty comb but I think maybe not for frames of honey.
> 
> I've been toying with an option, storing frames in a CO2 atmosphere, which should kill them, but with spotty results. I stuck some moth-infested frames from our swarm trap into a plastic bag and exposed it heavily to CO2 about a month ago. This failed to effect a complete kill. Reading up, I probably did not seal the bag well enough. I should have used it on the stored honey frames but thought they were free of moths when I stored them. I'm still hoping I can use CO2 by properly sealing plastic bins with 80% or more CO2 inside.
> 
> This past week I looked up what it would cost to buy a development kit for a CO2 sensor that can measure 5-100% concentration, just to be sure I'm getting the dose above 80% to get a good kill. That would run $229. Then I looked up smaller chest freezers. $150. I've been using CO2 because we don't have a chest freezer at our property with the apiary, but maybe its time to re-think that.


If you don't intend to process harvested honey immediately, it must be frozen. The bees can pretty much keep the moths down in the hive, but they still sneak in and lay eggs. If the frames are left where the eggs can hatch the harvest is ruined.


----------



## Terry C (Sep 6, 2013)

Phoebee said:


> I've been toying with an option, storing frames in a CO2 atmosphere, which should kill them, but with spotty results. I stuck some moth-infested frames from our swarm trap into a plastic bag and exposed it heavily to CO2 about a month ago. This failed to effect a complete kill. Reading up, I probably did not seal the bag well enough. I should have used it on the stored honey frames but thought they were free of moths when I stored them. I'm still hoping I can use CO2 by properly sealing plastic bins with 80% or more CO2 inside.
> 
> This past week I looked up what it would cost to buy a development kit for a CO2 sensor that can measure 5-100% concentration, just to be sure I'm getting the dose above 80% to get a good kill. That would run $229. Then I looked up smaller chest freezers. $150. I've been using CO2 because we don't have a chest freezer at our property with the apiary, but maybe its time to re-think that.


 Use the big black trash bags . Stack your boxes in there , and make sure the bag is a few inches above them . Stick a birthday candle on the top box , fill with CO2 until the candle snuffs then seal 'em up . That should work with bins too , the important part is having enough bag/bin above the level of the frames to put a candle so you know when the CO2 level is high enough .


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jmgi said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but there must be residue issues with using that stuff.


There is no residue with using Bt?

Does anyone know if a UV lamp will kill the eggs?


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

dsegrest said:


> If you don't intend to process harvested honey immediately, it must be frozen. The bees can pretty much keep the moths down in the hive, but they still sneak in and lay eggs. If the frames are left where the eggs can hatch the harvest is ruined.


Which answered my next question, but I'll ask anyway. I was wondering if freezing honey frames degrades the product.

CO2 would let me avoid freezing the honey, but keeping the frames in a sealed container is just asking for mold. I don't know if CO2 will prevent mold.

And leaving these three frames on was not an option if we wanted any harvest at all. We needed to put the feeders on, because the stores situation after this lousy spring was not viable.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Freezing preserves honey like all food. If it is three frames put it in the Frig.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Terry C said:


> Use the big black trash bags . Stack your boxes in there , and make sure the bag is a few inches above them . Stick a birthday candle on the top box , fill with CO2 until the candle snuffs then seal 'em up . That should work with bins too , the important part is having enough bag/bin above the level of the frames to put a candle so you know when the CO2 level is high enough .


I've done pretty much that. I think there are two reasons it didn't work. The first is that a candle or other flame (most recently I used a lighter) will extinguish at well below the 80-100% level needed to reliably kill insect pupae. The second is that the literature I found on preservation using CO2 a couple of days ago says that you really have to seal the system up aggressively. The paper mentioned doing this on a huge scale for grain storage, and mentioned that a square centimeter of leak in a large silo was sufficient to dilute the CO2 before the kill was effected. They also recommended keeping up a low purge flow rate. 

If I want to make a science project out of this, I think I need to invest in that high-CO2-level meter, just to verify that I am keeping the levels up. If I want to do this less expensively, I should shop for a freezer. 

This exchange inspired me to check on the mold problem in CO2. Controlled atmospheres have been tried for preventing mold on stored food, with mixed success. Low O2 and/or various concentrations of CO2 have been tested. High CO2 and near zero levels of oxygen probably will help, but humidity is also a factor and storing honey in a sealed container is pretty much a guarantee of high humidity. Temperature is also a factor, but again, freezing trumps all, as long as it does not degrade the honey (I'm thinking it probably will trigger crystalization in at least some honeys).

The advantage of CO2 is that, once you have the tank and regulator. or if you have a convenient source of dry ice, the refill costs are not that high. Some users have a problem freezing supers because of the volume ... they can't afford a walk-in freezer, and I was thinking that wrapping a stack in stretch wrap to seal it up might make CO2 a viable option on that scale. I still think it is worth a look, but I probably need to be the guy to look as freezers do seem to be a practical approach at my scale, and BtA is getting the job done at the larger scales for many of you.

BtA still scares me ... the EPA tested it (although probably not the exact strain approved for storing empty comb) and it will harm bee larvae (of course, you're not storing the frames with larvae in them). CO2 leaves no residue and I see a certain charm in that. I'm also pretty sure that Bt is not an option for storing frames of honey for later harvest.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Reading Michael Bush's article on wax moths (link in his post above) brings up another question. Anybody else make the mistake of loading up a swarm trap with old comb, and then come back later and find out what a heavy wax moth infestation looks like? I won't do THAT again. That mess is probably why we had so many wax moths hanging around this year.

It looks like treating comb with BtA before putting it into a swarm trap might be a pretty good idea.

I was thinking about just giving them frames with a starter strip for foundationless instead. Any thoughts as to which approach would make a swarm trap look more like a good home?


----------



## ApricotApiaries (Sep 21, 2014)

anyone ever burn sulfer?
I know a couple of guys who fill a container with supers, burn sulfer, seal it up, and walk away. I have never done it and can find zero literature on the topic but would like to know more


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Phoebee said:


> They also recommended keeping up a low purge flow rate.


If you are using a bag and a presurized system as long as the bag stays inflated co2 is present.


----------



## IAmTheWaterbug (Jun 4, 2014)

Phoebee said:


> BtA still scares me ... the EPA tested it (although probably not the exact strain approved for storing empty comb) and it will harm bee larvae (of course, you're not storing the frames with larvae in them). CO2 leaves no residue and I see a certain charm in that. I'm also pretty sure that Bt is not an option for storing frames of honey for later harvest.


I have mixed feelings about stuff like BtA (and the BtK I use on my sweet corn). "Deadly poison to bugs, but completely harmless to humans" just sounds too good to be true, but if you read the science, it sounds believable. 

Same thing for selamectin, the flea killer in Revolution (called Stronghold outside the U.S.). It gets absorbed into your cat or dog's body, and the minute concentration in the blood kills 99% of fleas that bite it within a few days. But tests show it completely harmless to mammals at many, many times the indicated dosage.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Acebird said:


> If you are using a bag and a presurized system as long as the bag stays inflated co2 is present.


The trick there is keeping the bag inflated long enough on 5-pound CO2 bottle. Four days with a bad leak is a waste. To make this cost-effective I need to keep the leaks to a minimum. I think this is not too hard, but the plastic bag with a tube running down into it and a heavy weight on top approach did not cut it. More likely I'll put a hose fitting near the bottom of a plastic bin and then seal the top on with some Saran Wrap.


----------



## IAmTheWaterbug (Jun 4, 2014)

Acebird said:


> If you are using a bag and a presurized system as long as the bag stays inflated co2 is present.


I'm thinking that you wouldn't need a leak-proof system, nor any positive pressure. It's not the CO2 that kills living things; it's the lack of O2 that kills them. CO2 displaces most of the air in the bag, and once the organisms consume the little bits of O2 that are left, they die. CO2 is heavier than air, so if you were to put the parts in a trash can, fill it with CO2, and put the lid on, there should be no mechanism to cause O2 to creep back into the spaces, especially if they're already in a plastic bag.

Then again I've never treated my frames with CO2 before; this is all just theoretical.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

IAmTheWaterbug said:


> I'm thinking that you wouldn't need a leak-proof system, nor any positive pressure. It's not the CO2 that kills living things; it's the lack of O2 that kills them. CO2 displaces most of the air in the bag, and once the organisms consume the little bits of O2 that are left, they die. CO2 is heavier than air, so if you were to put the parts in a trash can, fill it with CO2, and put the lid on, there should be no mechanism to cause O2 to creep back into the spaces, especially if they're already in a plastic bag.
> 
> Then again I've never treated my frames with CO2 before; this is all just theoretical.


Given this, almost any inert gas could be used, such as argon, or argon/CO2 mix, which can be purchased relatively inexpensively from welding supply houses. If the frames are placed inside a large garbage bag inside a large plastic garbage can, in a fairly still environment, it's pretty easy to displace all the oxygen in the container by just dribbling a little gas into the bag. Seal it around the tube with a zip tie, but leave enough slack that the existing O2 can escape around the tube. The pressure regulators used for welding can be trimmed down to a very low pressure, so you could let it "leak" into the bag for a couple of hours, and be pretty sure you've displaced all the breathable gas. Then, just pull the tube, and tighten the zip tie to secure that "batch" of sterilized frames. I'm going to give this a try, this weekend. Not sure how I'll know whether there were any moth babies killed, but I guess I'll know if they weren't when I open the bag, in the spring.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

IAmTheWaterbug said:


> I'm thinking that you wouldn't need a leak-proof system, nor any positive pressure. It's not the CO2 that kills living things; it's the lack of O2 that kills them. CO2 displaces most of the air in the bag, and once the organisms consume the little bits of O2 that are left, they die. CO2 is heavier than air, so if you were to put the parts in a trash can, fill it with CO2, and put the lid on, there should be no mechanism to cause O2 to creep back into the spaces, especially if they're already in a plastic bag.
> 
> Then again I've never treated my frames with CO2 before; this is all just theoretical.


Actually, CO2 does not just displace oxygen, it is toxic to most aerobic creatures. Humans are quite sensitive to it. But plants love it.

Lack of oxygen has its own deadly effects, of course. If the goal were just to displace oxygen, nitrogen comes to mind. I get my CO2 from a welding supply place. Argon is better for arc welding but I'm pretty sure it is more expensive.

My regulator is a flow measurement type. Instead of telling you the outlet pressure, it gives flow in cubic ft per hr and liters per minute, which helps judge when the container should be purged.

A couple of moths flying out of the bag was my clue that my last attempt was no good.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Phoebee said:


> The trick there is keeping the bag inflated long enough on 5-pound CO2 bottle. Four days with a bad leak is a waste.


I can't imagine it taking 4 days. 4 minutes maybe.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Phoebee said:


> A couple of moths flying out of the bag was my clue that my last attempt was no good.


We are trying to kill the eggs are we not?


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

http://www.researchgate.net/publica..._carbon_dioxide_enriched_modified_atmospheres


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Acebird said:


> I can't imagine it taking 4 days. 4 minutes maybe.


The figures I was given for killing all stages of moths in museum displays by a friend at the Smithsonian was, 4 hours at 100%, 4 days at 80%. I expect the eggs and pupae, which don't metabolize very fast, are the tough stages. This seems to be consistent with the data in the paper BeeCurious linked above. I note that the Israeli researchers used pretty high temperatures, too, of 26-30 C. 

Moths flying out several weeks after the treatment suggests that I failed to kill an earlier stage. The life cycle times the Israeli paper mentions are like bees but with a very short pupation time. To have adult moths after 3 weeks, I probably failed to kill eggs, and the paper says they are the toughest to kill.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Wow, 10 days exposure. Why bother, just freeze them.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird said:


> Wow, 10 days exposure. Why bother, just freeze them.


Bt works very well.


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

In late spring through mid fall I store mine tipped up on the cold side, space frames liberally and let indirect sunlight and moving air go through my supers. I have only gotten wax moth damage once when 2 frames slid together. In the winter I just stack them, and as we are about to get our first hard freeze, they'll stay frozen into March. I usually unstack in April.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

IAmTheWaterbug said:


> it's the lack of O2 that kills them. CO2 displaces most of the air in the bag,


It can't displace the air without letting it out so it has to leak until the whole bag if full of co2. Then of course there is the leakage that will actually go through the plastic bag, however slight. So you have to make up for that if it is a 10 day exposure.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

BeeCurious said:


> Bt works very well.


For those that like chemical solutions.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Acebird said:


> For those that like chemical solutions.


Ace, please explain how Bt is a "chemical solution"? Dying to learn something today.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

>> Bt works very well.



Acebird said:


> For those that like chemical solutions.


:scratch:  :s

Come on Ace - do a little reading first!


> Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt) is a Gram-positive,[HIGHLIGHT] soil-dwelling bacterium[/HIGHLIGHT], commonly used as a biological pesticide. B. thuringiensis also occurs naturally in the gut of caterpillars of various types of moths and butterflies, as well on leaf surfaces, aquatic environments, animal feces, insect-rich environments, and flour mills and grain-storage facilities.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis


:gh:


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

It has the potential of killing more than the targeted pest. I do not want it in my hive in the concentrations it would be in by human intervention.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Acebird said:


> It has the potential of killing more than the targeted pest.


What "other" hive pests would those be?


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

At the risk of setting off a major argument (which I managed to before on a discussion of BtA), I had looked up the effects on honeybees of BtI, the subspecies used to control mosquitos and flies, and had run across a very detailed EPA document that covered the effects of all four common subspecies. The study showed that BtI is as close to harmless to bees as you can get, with any effects down in the noise.

BtA, on the other hand, was not so harmless. So seeing this particular subspecies being discussed for use on hive components alarmed me. 

However, there was no discussion of which particular strain was tested. Here's where specific pesticide testing and labeling come into play. To be certified for use with bees, it is important to _*read the danged label *_and follow it. If a given strain of BtA is not specifically approved for use keeping wax moths off of stored frames, it may in fact be harmful. And just because a listed strain is approved for use on stored comb, does not mean you should spray it into a living hive. 

It may be that the one currently US approved BtA is a strain which does not show the ill effects of the one in that original study. That could be a single gene difference.

I may some day use BtA. But I will continue to suspect that it's _*misuse*_ can harm bees. Heck, I'm even cautious about using BtI ... I do use it in rain barrels for mosquito control, but not in open bodies of water or in the poultry feeder the bees get their water from.

I will back Acebird's exact wording on this one. BtA is a subspecies that most closely targets butterflies and moths, but it can harm other insects. Maybe some other pests but at least one major study documented harm to bees. 

We live in Gypsy Moth country. If spraying is scheduled, as registered WV beekeepers we will be notified (and in fact would be paying for the spraying which our HOA would have asked for). In which case, even if they are spraying a Bt strain, the girls will be inside for the prescribed time to avoid being harmed.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Still avoiding answering how it is a "chemical solution", Ace?


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

jwcarlson said:


> Still avoiding answering how it is a "chemical solution", Ace?


On that I'd quibble with Acebird. CO2 is a "chemical solution." Bt is a biological warfare approach. It is Gypsy moth anthrax (the genus Bacillus makes it a cousin to a biological warfare agent humans fear greatly). And I've watched gypsy moth caterpillars dying after exposure: it is a gruesome death.

So Bt is not a "chemical solution," but it is not something I'd want to use off-label around our 200,000 pets. And I can also say with confidence that it will harm butterflies if applied where they will get to it and at times when they are in larval form.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

That's the issue, see. Ace thought Bt was some sort of chemical you sprayed on combs to kill or repel them... something "unnatural". Hence is comment about it being a "chemical solution".

The word chemical on this site it thrown around with disregard and used solely for negative connotation while ignoring the fact that all matter is a chemical. So Ace is dumping chemicals in his hive when he's feeding cappings back to his bees. Anyone feeding syrup is putting GALLONS of chemicals into their hives. Bees haul chemicals back into the hive daily. Anyone providing fresh water for their bees? You're lacing them with chemicals. Bees die every winter due to lack of sufficient chemical sustenance.

That's all I was getting at. The absurdity.
I must wait before I give you rep though... dang 24 hour timer. 

Michael Bush's website says the following of Bt:


> Bt aka Bacillus thuringiensis
> 
> Some people use Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) as either Certan or Xentari, on the combs. It will kill the moth larvae and seems to have no ill effects on the bees and studies have supported this view. It can be sprayed on infested combs even with the bees on them to clear up the infestation. It can be sprayed on foundation before putting it in the hive. It can be sprayed on combs before storing them. I simply haven't had the time to do this in years now, but, as I say, my management seems to keep them under control except in failing hives. But it would probably help in the failing hives if I had it on the combs ahead of time. Certan used to be approved for use on wax moths in the US but the certification ran out and there was no money in renewing it, so it's no longer labeled that way in the US, but is available labeled for that use from Canada and available labeled for use against moth larvae (but not wax moth per se) in the US as Xentari.


http://www.bushfarms.com/beeswaxmoths.htm


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Acebird said:


> It has the potential of killing more than the targeted pest. I do not want it in my hive in the concentrations it would be in by human intervention.


So Ace, does than mean you're "treatment free?"


----------



## IAmTheWaterbug (Jun 4, 2014)

jwcarlson said:


> That's the issue, see. Ace thought Bt was some sort of chemical you sprayed on combs to kill or repel them... something "unnatural". Hence is comment about it being a "chemical solution".
> 
> The word chemical on this site it thrown around with disregard and used solely for negative connotation while ignoring the fact that all matter is a chemical.


I don't want to get into a war of semantics, but some "BtA" formulations may, in fact, be chemical. Here's a post from 2008 suggesting that XenTari contains just the toxic proteins produced by the BtA, not the live bacteria or viable endospores. In that case I would be more inclined to describe it as a chemical than as a biological agent.

But in either case, chemicals and biological agents can be good or bad, depending on how they're used. BtA is a naturally occurring bacterium producing a naturally occurring toxic protein. But we're using it in concentrations several orders of magnitude higher than they occur in nature, which makes it worthy of caution.

The species specificity always give me pause, especially when it's used with less apparent harm to other species that are not so distantly related. 

Then again, chocolate is poisonous to some mammals and not at all to me


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

My point entirely... it's all a chemical if it is physical matter.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Phoebee said:


> I had looked up the effects on honeybees of BtI, the subspecies used to control mosquitos and flies, and had run across a very detailed EPA document that covered the effects of all four common subspecies. The study showed that BtI is as close to harmless to bees as you can get, with any effects down in the noise.
> 
> BtA, on the other hand, was not so harmless. So seeing this particular subspecies being discussed for use on hive components alarmed me.


I would be interested looking at that EPA study. Do you have a link or know where I might be able to look it up?


----------



## IAmTheWaterbug (Jun 4, 2014)

Phoebee said:


> Actually, CO2 does not just displace oxygen, it is toxic to most aerobic creatures. Humans are quite sensitive to it.


I stand corrected. Thank you.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jwcarlson said:


> it's all a chemical if it is physical matter.


No it is all a chemical if it is introduced by human intervention because the dosage is way beyond what would be found by natural means. You keep doing what your doing and I will keep doing what I am doing and we will be happy, I think. Would you like to taste some honey. I will send you some? It doesn't have to cost a plane ticket.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

You don't get to change definitions of words to fit your world view, Ace. And while we're talking about introducing chemicals into honey and hives... thanks for the honey offer, but I prefer mine to to be drizzled over scrap parts robbed from a dumpster before I eat it.

The word "chemical" is used as a pejorative on this site and everywhere these days. Your refeeding of honey cappings is introducing a chemical that left the bee's control when you intervened. Then you intervene AGAIN and gave the cappings back. Double whammy, how do they survive?


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Mike Gillmore said:


> I would be interested looking at that EPA study. Do you have a link or know where I might be able to look it up?
> ]


Going back to the discussion from early 2014, the document at the link I used then has been replaced by a little 4-page light-duty thing that I found while trying to look this up last week. But here's the passage that concerned me. I will keep looking to see if I can find the original paper. I should have downloaded it when I had the chance.

Cut and pasted from: http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ing-BT-for-wax-moth-control&highlight=aizawai

Table 4 B. thuringiensis subspecies aizawai
GUIDELINE MRID RESULT
154-23 green lace-wing 419943-21 NOEL = 10,000 ppm
larvae
422453-01 Toxic to larvae at 10x field rate
parasitic 419943-19 NOEL = 100 ppm
hymenoptera
predatory mite 419748-09 1x field rate resulted in 24% corrected mortality
predaceous 419943-20 NOEL = 10,000 ppm
coleoptera
429421-01 NOEL = 1566 ppm
154-24 Honey bee 419748-08 Highly toxic; LE50 = 15 ppm

With the exceptions of MRIDs 414434-09 and 422453-01, the nontarget
insect B. thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki, B. thuringiensis subspecies israelensis,
B. thuringiensis subspecies tenebrionis (CryIIIA) and B. thuringiensis subspecies
21, aizawai studies show little to no toxicity or pathogenicity in the tested neuroptera,
hymenoptera, coleoptera, arthropod and annelida group indicator species. The
above honey bee data indicate a high degree of toxicity for B. thuringiensis
subspecies aizawai and minimal toxicity for B. thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki,
B. thuringiensis subspecies israelensis and B. thuringiensis subspecies tenebrionis.

With the exception of honey bee and earthworm testing, all of the nontarget
insect studies listed above were graded as supplemental. However, since the
Agency currently waives the requirement for nontarget insect data (but not
honeybee testing) for registration, no additional data are required. These data are
routinely waived because Bacillus thuringiensis does not cause epizooatics in the
field; it functions by a toxic mode-of-action.
(This strain is effective against butterflies and moths, so might be used in gypsy moth control. It appears to have a secondary toxin, deadly to many other organisms including bees, so beware of this one if gypsy moth spraying is scheduled.)


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

As the discussion above developed, I admitted that my alarm may have been unfounded, and that the particular approved product might indeed be OK. Looking at the paragraphs in my last post, it appears that of the four subspecies tested, only aizawai showed high toxicity to honeybees. This suggests that either the subspecies or the strain tested has one toxin not present in the others. And so, if later testing found that a particular approved strain was OK, maybe that's the extent of the problem. But it also is a strong reminder to be SURE what you are using is approved and safe for honeybees. And with any pesticide in the US, honeybee safety testing is a special set of tests apart from general testing.

Trying to find the original document, it seems to have vanished. Looking up other EPA papers on aizawai, I find that some are archived, none are this specific, and sections of some of them have been blacked out as if they had some CIA secret stuff in them. Likely the entire paper was redacted to keep me from spreading my silly ideas.

But it got me started on CO2, which I did another experiment with this weekend. As discussed in last year's thread, I finally abandoned the plastic bag that apparently leaked, and used the 53 liter plastic bins I bought for the purpose about the time of those posts last year. These will hold 8 deep frames. I reamed a 3/8" hole for a tight fit to a 3/8" tube in one lower corner, installed two harvested honey frames, one wax-moth infested honey frame, and 5 of the most disgusting wax-moth-damaged frames you have ever seen (from my swarm trap). I discovered several live larvae still on the swarm trap frames (they must still be breeding on them) and put those in the bin where I could see them.

I put the lid on the box and weighted it down with an 8-frame deep super to reduce leakage. I started the flow at an indicated rate of 5 liters/minute (a totally wrong indication ... later tests showed it was several times that rate). At 5 liters/minute, 10 minutes would have filled the container, but with mixing, so I guessed 10 minutes would give around 60%. I let the gas flow for a total of 40 minutes, which should have gotten something like 90% or higher. After the flow, it turned out I'd used 3.5 pounds of CO2, WAY more than the indicated flow should have given. So basically the container was dosed to nearly 100%. That worked out to about $15 of CO2, but it was overkill. A pound should have been enough. A fill-up of this 5-pound cylinder runs about $26.

In just a few minutes in CO2 the larvae that had been crawling went still. That does not mean they were dead, but I suspect they will be by next weekend when I check again. 

To be sure the concentration holds, I left the deep on top, and wrapped the lid onto the bin using some store-brand vinyl stretch wrap stolen from the kitchen. I cut the wrap (on the tube) to 4" widths. I think you can buy stretch-wrap in this width from packing suppliers. Next week, I intend to try other bins with closed-cell gaskets.

I think this approach deserves the test. It may not be economical for end-of-season storage of empty comb. I think it does have merit for storing combs of honey if there will be a delay before extraction ... I would not want Bt applied to anything people will eat. It is probably harmless to people, but I would expect the fine print on the package says not to use it that way.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Phoebee said:


> Likely the entire paper was redacted to keep me from spreading my silly ideas.


They're onto you. 

Seriously, thanks for looking into it. 

I've been treating my stored frames with BTA for years and have never seen any adverse effects on the bees. If it was toxic to honeybees I don't know why I would not have noticed it over such a long period of time. I completely agree that the correct strain or product used is critical. Not an area to cut corners or try something different.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

I went back to the clipping I posted above, and used the reference MRID 429421-01 NOEL to attempt to look up the source. Google found a hit:

http://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/red_PC-006400_30-Mar-98.pdf

Page 20, table 4, B. thuringiensis subspecies aizawai (paging is the .pdf version I created and downloaded) appears to be similar to the data I found in the original study. The "bottom line" (literally) states:

154-24 Honey bee 419748-08 Highly toxic; LE = 15 ppm

Page 28 of the above has this rather sanitized statement: 

Direct toxicity to honeybees has been shown for some
strains. Exposure to honeybees could occur, but the risk is
considered minimal since the pesticide is not considered toxic to
*adult* honeybees at the label use rates. If excessive toxicity is seen
in any subsequent product testing, labeling will be required to
reduce exposure to honeybees.

My emphasis on adult. Bt typically works on larvae. Spraying for gypsy moths, for example, would probably not hurt foragers. I'd keep them in during spraying to be sure they don't track it in and infect larvae, as that might involve some harm, and is why I'd have to have very strong assurances that BtA does not harm larvae before applying it directly to active frames in a hive.

Page 60 has some wording on conditional waiver of testing for honeybees for this re-registration.

There's an extensive bibliography a few pages after that, if you want to really destroy your mind.


----------



## Terry C (Sep 6, 2013)

Do wax moths only lay eggs in the frames ? I have a box of frames that were frozen after I [pullled them , I was just wondering if they also lay in/on the box itself . I sealed these up in a trash bag over the box full of frames when I pulled them from the freezer , don't really want to open the bag to check unless there is a chance there are moths in there .


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

Terry C said:


> Do wax moths only lay eggs in the frames ? I have a box of frames that were frozen after I [pullled them , I was just wondering if they also lay in/on the box itself . I sealed these up in a trash bag over the box full of frames when I pulled them from the freezer , don't really want to open the bag to check unless there is a chance there are moths in there .


I suspect they lay eggs where there is food, which would mostly be frames. The larvae crawl all over the place, and I've got pictures of cocoons above an inside top cover and on all sorts of wood surfaces. We encountered one larva last week that was only 1/4 inch long, so they could hide pretty easily.


----------



## red (Jan 15, 2013)

I had a bunch of frame feeders stored in empty boxes this last summer. The wax moths laid between the wood and the feeders and also between each feeder. They didn't hurt anything but it did make a mess. Also this is the first year I have had them bother my equipment stored inside a building.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Once they start they seem to get into everything. You'll find they've got a weird smell too. It's kind of a copper/iron smell.

Got our first hard frost this weekend. I'll be stacking and rolling all my equipment with drawn frames inside for a snug winters nap sometime this week.


----------



## KQ6AR (May 13, 2008)

BT Azawaii for me. 

XenTari BT
by Xentari
Link: http://amzn.com/B004CZ1MOM


----------



## OhioBee (May 30, 2014)

This year I froze my frames for 24 hours and then placed back into hive bodies (hopefully wax moth free, as they are too big to put in freezer) and then shrunk wrap hive boxes and placed in plastic garbage bags in garage. Any thoughts? I definitely had wax moths and larva on one of my hives, four frames had so much larva I dumped them.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

I just posted a more detailed write-up of my current CO2 fumigation tests in the Equipment section.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?319123-CO2-for-Wax-Moth-Fumigation


----------



## StoneLion (Jul 12, 2014)

Question for the group. Are you guys using this on all frames that you store? or only super frames? It may not be harmful to adult honey bees but looks like it is harmful to larva? If you sprayed stored brood frames could they be used the following season for honeybee brood?


----------



## charmd2 (May 25, 2008)

I apply it to all frames that leave an occupied hive. Empty brood frames, supers, swarm traps. At this point in time, I haven't noted a difference in acceptance or hive health using it this way.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

StoneLion said:


> Question for the group. Are you guys using this on all frames that you store? or only super frames? It may not be harmful to adult honey bees but looks like it is harmful to larva? If you sprayed stored brood frames could they be used the following season for honeybee brood?


I've been using XenTari BT for many years and have never seen any problems whatsoever with brood. The frames are sprayed in the fall, brood and super frames, and stored for the winter. When they are put back into circulation the following spring I've noticed no problems at all with brood. And no problems with wax moth damage.


----------



## radallo (Oct 28, 2015)

Using queen excluder should be a nice start... expecially in cold area the wax moth do not attack super combs if they never had brood. 
Different strategy might be needed in warm climate..


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

Disclaimer: I haven't read all responses above. Honey supers that never see brood rearing in them are the easiest to manage. I don't do anything to them. Queen excluders are key. I've been using the same 80-100 honey supers for prob 10 years. they only go on during the honey flow and I pull them off, extract, put back out for bees to clean and then store! Brood combs are another matter probably addressed above!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

While greater wax moths do not bother comb with no cocoons or pollen, lesser will eat just wax. I know from experience that lesser wax moths can destroy a great amount of comb that contains no cocoons or pollen. They are still living in the basement of my old house on whatever scraps of wax they can find after destroying many whole supers of comb. I would not count on "no cocoons" to protect you from lesser wax moths.


----------

