# List of approved



## guatebee (Nov 15, 2004)

Hi all!

I wonder if anyone has access to a formal, official source of all currently approved compounds used in beekeeping to fight diseases and pests.

I mean all compounds, either chemical or organic.

I searched in the Bee Labs´sites, but no luck. 
Thanks for the help.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

guatebee . . . 

>a formal, official source . . .

I dont think a "formal official source" exists for ANYTHING in beekeeping.

Are you looking for something specific?


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

It depends on the given country.


----------



## guatebee (Nov 15, 2004)

By official listing of medications I mean those subsatances, chemical or natural, which are approved by the US agricultural authorities.

For example:
Moth balls (PDB) for wax moth,
Tetracycline for EFB and AFB
Oxalic acid for varroa, etc. etc

I suspect there are some substances that are banned nowadays because of their residual effect, even though they were used in the past.

It is therefore that I seek updated information.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

The best reference I could suggest would be
_"Honey Bee Pests, Predators, and Diseases"_,
a book from AI Root that addresses each and every
known problem that might require "treatment" of
one sort or another, and multiple products, some
new, some old and outdated, some now illegal in
many jurisdictions, with notes as to what is
now "banned", or simply no longer available.

The complexity people are trying to explain is
that some treatments are only allowed in a
specific list of states within the USA.

For example, the Thymol-based "ApiLife-VAR" and
"ApiGuard" products are essentially the same
exact thing, but in some states, neither are
allowed, in other states only one is allowed,
and in still other states only the other is
allowed.

Because it is very difficult and expensive to
obtain an "EPA Section 3" certification for a
pesticide product, most beekeeping products
rely on the "Section 18" so-called "emergency"
approval process. At the last VA State Beekeeper
meeting, Keith Tignor, the State Apiarist, spent
a looong time explaining *very* slowly in
*very* small words that VA could only get
approval for ONE of these two products at a time,
as both were under "Section 18", and the
regulations do not allow one to approve two
products that use "the same active ingredient"
at the same time.

...or at least that's what I understood him
to say...









So, once you have the really thick and very
depressing book of all known bee problems
planet-wide, and have made a list of the
problems that are known to exist (or suspected
to exist) in the USA, you then have to e-mail
the various supply companies, and ask them if
they will send you their list of what can be
shipped to which states under the current set
of both state-level and national approvals.

And what you are going to do with all that
specific information in Guatemala is a puzzle
to me. Is the idea here to try to convince
your local authorities to allow one treatment
or another merely because the USA allows it?

That's not a good strategy, as the USA still
has no formal approval for Oxalic Acid dribbling,
a technique for treating broodless clusters
that is so promising and so harmless that we are
being given winks and nods so unsubtle that one
is prompted to think that certain reputable folks
in research are suffering from nervous tics!









So, you have to also look at Canada, the EU,
maybe even NZ and Australia. (No, don't bother
with Australia, they still think that they can
somehow "sterilize" foulbrood with nothing more
than a dip of woodenware in liquefied paraffin!)


----------



## guatebee (Nov 15, 2004)

Thank you Jim for a lenghty reply.
Quite frankly, most of our honey goes to Europe, and importers are becoming (behaving)increasingly picky about reidues of any kind. 

I am not saying they shouldn´t be (or am I ?). My point is that since they are looking for something so absurdely small as 0.5 ppb, we beekeepers better be sure WHAT to use and HOW in order to comply. That is, if we want to keep selling.

Simply put, I guess one could use whatever works as long as it won´t show under the mic or the electrophotometer-or-other.

Some compounds, however, are simply not authorized because they are harmful, highly residual, or downright wasteful. 

Examples:
Is burning sulfur for moths still a choice?
Is tetracycline still affordable and safe (food wise) as compared to eliminating the colony ?
How about treatments needed close to a honey flow, when risk of unacceptable resiudes is high? 

Yet, some honey merchants insist that NOTHING can or shall be applied to a colony of sick or healthy bees. This NOTHING includes: 
* latex-based paint to protect the wood from rotting (increasing costs)
* protein or vitamin addition to artificial feed
* sugar syrup feed
This extreme thinking sprouts from the fear (panick) that beekeepers will not use things right, and therefore honey contamination will result in high money losses.

So, in conclusion, may be the really important thing is to UNDERSTAND HOW a substance works, WHAT the pathogen or predator does, and act responsibly towards the bees and the customers.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Quite frankly, most of our honey goes to Europe, 
> and importers are becoming (behaving)increasingly 
> picky about reidues of any kind.

Of course they are. They can claim to "find" some
residue or other, and even though it might be
within the MRLs established, use it as leverage
to offer you a lower price, claiming that all
offer prices are for "zero residue" honey, a
complete myth given that many tolerances are
down to the "threshold of detection", meaning
that a mere statistical analysis of random
noise data from an HPLC/MS might result in a
claim of "contamination" or "residues".

Better to develop and enhance your local market
for honey than to try and play a game that is
rigged against any/all honey from far away.

Silly things, like not painting hives are nothing
but an over-reaction. I can understand the
"no feeding" strategy, as it assures that nothing
is introduced to the hive, and, as you said,
avoids problems caused by incompetent beekeepers,
but even this is silly, as it should be clear
that feeding, if done properly, transforms all the
feed into bees long before the flows begin.


----------



## guatebee (Nov 15, 2004)

AGREED!!


----------

