# oxalic acid



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

wild-b said:


> can you vaporize oxalic acid with honey supers on ?


No, absolutely not! But no need to remove them, just slide a piece of cardboard or ??? between the brood nest and supers. You can remove 15 minutes later.


----------



## NCBeekeeper (Apr 4, 2013)

I think those political signs that get left out work good.


----------



## jrbbees (Apr 4, 2010)

Please explain why not if you are not going to harvest the honey.


----------



## wild-b (Apr 23, 2014)

If you weren't going to use the honey I would imagine you could, but I plan on it so I might just pull them for 20 minutes and then put them back on.


----------



## gezellig (Jun 11, 2014)

snl said:


> No, absolutely not! But no need to remove them, just slide a piece of cardboard or ??? between the brood nest and supers. You can remove 15 minutes later.


I guess if you don't plan to harvest the honey you could leave it on, but....

But also, SNL, and this is an actual info gathering question. If you slipped a piece of newspaper or any barrier in between the brood box and super, wouldn't you have to have removed the bees from the supers first in order to get to the mites in the phorectic stage? Otherwise wouldn't a major portion of the bees miss treatment?


----------



## Honey-4-All (Dec 19, 2008)

snl said:


> No, absolutely not! But no need to remove them, just slide a piece of cardboard or ??? between the brood nest and supers. You can remove 15 minutes later.


Why not?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Honey-4-All said:


> Why not?



I think the question is, why would you _not_ remove the supers?


----------



## wild-b (Apr 23, 2014)

The way I understand it is the vapor turns to a crystal and won't go beyond the cardboard or political sign. So there would be no reason to pull them but I would like to have all the bees out of the supers and in the lower boxes so I treated all of them. Just my opinion


----------



## trapperdirk (Nov 3, 2013)

I am not an advanced bee keeper by any stretch, but here's my logic.

I would not treat with supers on. I have been known to move frames from hive to hive as needed. Some of that honey could conceivable be moved (by the bees) somewhere I don't want it.

I have witnessed a hive get robbed out. In that case, the same honey might get somewhere else I don't want it.

In any case, I would think it best to avoid contaminating the honey, then it can be used or moved anywhere there is a need. Including the breakfast table!


----------



## Honey-4-All (Dec 19, 2008)

trapperdirk said:


> I am not an advanced bee keeper by any stretch, but here's my logic.
> 
> I would not treat with supers on. I have been known to move frames from hive to hive as needed. Some of that honey could conceivable be moved (by the bees) somewhere I don't want it.
> 
> ...



Contamination?

Would anyone here be afraid to take a stick of rhubarb and put it in the blender followed by pouring that mix on the bees? Toxic isn't it?


----------



## trapperdirk (Nov 3, 2013)

Honey-4-all

I am probably showing my ignorance here. Is OA a product that food can be exposed to?

Honest question on my part, not trying to bust any chops, I do not know.


----------



## Honey-4-All (Dec 19, 2008)

trapperdirk said:


> Honey-4-all
> 
> I am probably showing my ignorance here. Is OA a product that food can be exposed to?
> 
> Honest question on my part, not trying to bust any chops, I do not know.



See: http://helios.hampshire.edu/~nlNS/mompdfs/oxalicacid.pdf

I will let it speak for itself.


----------



## trapperdirk (Nov 3, 2013)

Thank you Honey-4-all.

Looks like folks take in OA on a regular basis, but like everything else, too much can cause problems. 

I'll stick with trying to minimize it as a precaution.


----------



## Honey-4-All (Dec 19, 2008)

trapperdirk said:


> Thank you Honey-4-all.
> 
> Looks like folks take in OA on a regular basis, but like everything else, too much can cause problems.
> 
> I'll stick with trying to minimize it as a precaution.


I think the 'load' off of a teaspoon or 20 of OA'd honey would have so few micrograms in it doubt it would be an issue. Without doing a titration test my guess would be that the bowl of rhubarb would be 10 times stronger than the honey.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

OAV puts hundreds of times what is found in the natural balance of OA in the hives. Altho the bees quickly remove the reformed OA crystals (within days), if vaporized when honey was nectar (thus un-sealed) the re-crystallized crystals would fall into the nectar and eventually sealed. 

That amount may not hurt you but possibly someone else who has a reaction to it. Above all, the EPA says no to leaving supers on the hive and every study that I've found, says no.


----------



## trapperdirk (Nov 3, 2013)

Honey-4-all,

I bet you're right, though I thought the OA was concentrated in the leaves. 

I have seen on several posts where people have claimed that someone's honey made them sick. I can just imagine what you might go through if someone had the honey tested and it came back higher in OA than what would normally be expected. If they claimed they had the same symptoms as "rhubarb poisoning" it might pose a problem, some slick lawyer might jump all over that. 

Of course if you are not harvesting any honey at all there should be no problem whatsoever.


----------



## wild-b (Apr 23, 2014)

OK thanks guys I know there is OA in food and there are a lot of ways to put on OA. In either a dribble or a mix with sugar water or the vapor. I'll take the side of safety and it's not that big of a deal to pull them for a couple of minutes.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Everyone pretty much knows my stance on chemicals (better living through chemistry!) and I am not worried about excess OA levels in honey from OVA treated honey. But I just see no reason to not remove (or shield) the supers while treating with OVA. To me it is just a standard safety precaution. 

Besides, when OVA becomes available packaged as a pesticide, $100 says the label indicates to remove honey supers before use.


----------



## BeeGhost (May 7, 2011)

Ive vaporized with supers on and im not dead, I grew a third arm, but that comes in handy these days!! The way I see it is I am dosing for the two deep brood chambers, anything above that is getting a lot weaker dose, right? I mean, its suppose to be a measured dose per deep hive body, so if I was only to use one capful for two deeps that would be under dosing right? I also don't close the hives up for 10 minutes after treatment anymore because I see absolutely no difference in effectiveness between closed up for 10 and just pulling the wand and letting the foragers back in, other than I don't have a ton of foragers hanging on the outside of the hives!!!


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

The Italians did a study where they gassed hives with uncapped honey using OA and the 'natural' OA already present in the honey didn't significantly increase. The amount of OA in the uncapped honey was much less than a certain type of honey that naturally has a large amount of OA in it. Yes, you can do it with supers on. I wouldn't, I do it after the honey is pulled. If you don't plan on harvesting the honey, sure, even if you're planning on harvesting the honey, sure.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Nabber86 said:


> Besides, when OVA becomes available packaged as a pesticide, $100 says the label indicates to remove honey supers before use.


You'll easily win that bet, the label DOES say not to treat with the supers on!


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

BeeGhost said:


> Ive vaporized with supers on and im not dead!


Then why is your name "BeeGhost?"


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

I agree


----------



## cgybees (Apr 20, 2015)

snl said:


> No, absolutely not! But no need to remove them, just slide a piece of cardboard or ??? between the brood nest and supers. You can remove 15 minutes later.


Please link some supporting evidence... there is a lot of work out there that shows that oxalic does not build up in any noticeable amounts in honey, and locally there's no restriction on time of use..


----------



## cgybees (Apr 20, 2015)

rwurster said:


> The Italians did a study where they gassed hives with uncapped honey using OA and the 'natural' OA already present in the honey didn't significantly increase. The amount of OA in the uncapped honey was much less than a certain type of honey that naturally has a large amount of OA in it. Yes, you can do it with supers on. I wouldn't, I do it after the honey is pulled. If you don't plan on harvesting the honey, sure, even if you're planning on harvesting the honey, sure.


Relevant links
Scientific Beekeeping article:http://scientificbeekeeping.com/oxalic-acid-questions-answers-and-more-questions-part-1-of-2-parts/

(see also citations at the bottom)

A previous Beesource discussion on the topic: http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?193801-Honey-and-Oxalic-acid

The source I believe you're citing was this article? http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/spring_treatment_oxalic_acid.htm

However that one used trickle / spray versus vapour. The relevant findings "Oxalic acid residues

Just before the spring treatments the mean natural concentration of oxalic acid (±S.E.M.) was measured to be between 19.56±0.83 ppm and 35.85±5.96 ppm in the three experimental groups (FIGURE 3). Eight days after the treatment the oxalic acid concentration was increased in the treated groups compared to before treatment but only the increase in the sprayed group to 62.84±15.88 was significant (K-W, p<0.05). At the first honey harvest in June the mean natural concentration of oxalic acid (±S.E.M.) was measured to be 37.78±5.55 ppm in the sprayed group, 41.56±8.54 in the trickled group and 57.70±7.95 ppm in the control group. There was no significant difference in oxalic acid concentration between the groups at any of the sampling dates (K-W, p>0.05). "

"Neither the residues of oxalic acid in honey, the GST activity, nor the colony development after spring treatment with either trickling or spraying with oxalic acid seem to indicate any problems. However, before the use of oxalic acid as spring treatments is recommended in Denmark it is necessary to put more effort into efficacy tests with a large number of control colonies in field trials."


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

cgybees said:


> Please link some supporting evidence... there is a lot of work out there that shows that oxalic does not build up in any noticeable amounts in honey............


I agree,_* HOWEVER*_ every report I've read (even the current EPA Label on OA use) says you are NOT to use it with supers on! I like to error on the side of safety..... Would you suggest using it with supers on when the EPA and others say not to????


----------



## cgybees (Apr 20, 2015)

snl said:


> I agree,_* HOWEVER*_ every report I've read (even the current EPA Label on OA use) says you are NOT to use it with supers on! I like to error on the side of safety..... Would you suggest using it with supers on when the EPA and others say not to????


Canadian decision allowing use: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/sc-hc/H113-25-2010-12-eng.pdf

On label usage: http://www.honeycouncil.ca/documents/29575%20Approved%20E%20label%2004Nov2010.pdf

Current reccommendations from my provincial apiarist defers to the label: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/deptdocs.nsf/all/prm13239/$FILE/2014-recommendations.pdf


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

I'm sorry, but did you read the label? It specifically stated not to use when honey supers were in place.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

This thread is getting way too far out on a limb. We can argue the science all day long, but nobody can tell me that leaving the supers on is a good thing, when it is all to easy to remove them, or treat after harvesting. Again I am a big proponent of chemicals when they work and OA does work very well, but why be lazy and not remove the supers? People are arguing with the biggest proponent of OVA on BS when he is promoting safety. How messed up is that? If Monsanto came up with a treatment where they said that you can treat with supers on, pitch forks and torches would have shut the thread down cold it it's tracks.


----------



## wild-b (Apr 23, 2014)

I got my answer a long time ago. 
Thanks everyone


----------



## cgybees (Apr 20, 2015)

snl said:


> I'm sorry, but did you read the label? It specifically stated not to use when honey supers were in place.


That was kind of my point.. (I was incorrect earlier, on-label usage in my area warns against use with honey on too. Which kind of poses a problem for anyone running TBH who may want to use it)


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

cgybees said:


> (I was incorrect earlier, on-label usage in my area warns against use with honey on too. Which kind of poses a problem for anyone running TBH who may want to use it)


Yes it does, but one can always "pull the honey" first, then OAV. Inconvenient, maybe. I don't see another option for TBH. Perhaps a TBH user can chime in with another option.


----------



## dsegrest (May 15, 2014)

wild-b said:


> If you weren't going to use the honey I would imagine you could, but I plan on it so I might just pull them for 20 minutes and then put them back on.


The treatment doesn't accomplish much in the honey supers, but if you do leave them on you will need to increase the dose to cover the extra area. Treating the supers is a pretty bad idea.


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

Nabber86 said:


> ... Again I am a big proponent of chemicals when they work and OA does work very well, but why be lazy and not remove the supers? People are arguing with the biggest proponent of OVA on BS when he is promoting safety. How messed up is that?...


I agree. I have always removed harvestable honey prior to any OAV treatment even though I honestly don't have to. It just makes sense to me to do so.

>>I'm sorry, but did you read the label? It specifically stated not to use when honey supers were in place.

I have not read the label but again, it makes sense to me to remove supers prior to treatment. Using products off label is a no-no and as beekeepers and cottage food preparers we should be the most sensitive to treating with harvestable honey still on the hive. I've been convinced for a long time treating with OAV won't hurt your honey but like I said, I personally won't ever do it with supers on. Since legalization the OPs original question is more of an 'off label' type of question.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

snl said:


> I'm sorry, but did you read the label? It specifically stated not to use when honey supers were in place.


Any word on when OA that is packaged and labeled as a pesticide will be available for consumer purchase?


----------



## IronBee (Mar 21, 2014)

Nabber86 said:


> but why be lazy and not remove the supers? .


You must not have many colonies.. 

Are people seriously doubting independent studies that show lower levels of OA in the treated colonies compared to the untreated ones??


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

IronBee said:


> You must not have many colonies..
> 
> Are people seriously doubting independent studies that show lower levels of OA in the treated colonies compared to the untreated ones??


I have 10 right now.

Lower levels in treated hives? How is that even possible?


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Nabber86 said:


> Any word on when OA that is packaged and labeled as a pesticide will be available for consumer purchase?


It is available right now from Brushy Mountain. They don't list on their website and you can only buy it at the moment by going to one of their stores. They are not shipping it as of yet.


----------



## IronBee (Mar 21, 2014)

Nabber86 said:


> I have 10 right now.
> 
> Lower levels in treated hives? How is that even possible?


Yea, it becomes less about laziness and more about a logistical nightmare for commercial operations, when you consider the removal _and _proper storage of thousands of medium honey supers each weighing 30-40 lbs 

Regarding post treatment levels of OA, see post #26 above, it has a link to one - albeit with a small sample size - and there have been more. (I recall seeing one recently with around 4k colonies too)

I think multiple independent studies of OA levels is good enough for me to feel comfortable about using something that is already naturally found in honey anyways. 
Another cue is how a honey extraction plant cannot detect that OA has been used, either, when processing your honey. 
I believe any party who has been advocating for removal of honey supers prior to treatment are just playing the CYA game due to their own lack of knowledge of the product and studies...


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

IronBee said:


> Yea, it becomes less about laziness and more about a logistical nightmare for commercial operations, when you consider the removal _and _proper storage of thousands of medium honey supers each weighing 30-40 lbs
> 
> Regarding post treatment levels of OA, see post #26 above, it has a link to one - albeit with a small sample size - and there have been more. (I recall seeing one recently with around 4k colonies too)
> 
> I think multiple independent studies of OA levels is good enough for me to feel comfortable about using something that is already naturally found in honey anyways.


As a backyarder if you do not remove supers prior to treatment, you are breaking federal law. That said, it doesn't really matter because nobody is going to come after you. I have no problem with me doing that if I wanted to, nor anyone else. 

if you are a commercial guy and do not remove the supers as per the label instructions you are breaking federal law and if you get caught, you will be facing fines and possibly jail time.

It doesn't look like the writer's first language may have been English, so I took the liberty of simplifying the results shown in post number 26.

Before treatment the mean concentration of oxalic acid was between 19 and 35 ppm in all three groups. 

Eight days later, the oxalic acid concentration in the treated hives increased, but the only statistically significant increase occurred in the sprayed hives (the mean concentration in the sprayed hives increased to 62 ppm).

In June, all of the hives showed an increase in OA concentration as follows:

37 ppm in the sprayed group

41 ppm in the trickled group

57 ppm in the control group. 

So yes, the control hives showed the most increase at the _end_ of the study, however the end of the study was arbitrary. We don't know the length of time and what was happening in the hives between the 8 day samples and the June sampling event. Do the levels of OA naturally fluctuate over time in any hive (treated or not). Certainly they do. Is it possible for OA levels in untreated hives to surpass the OA levels in treated hives at some point in the future? Absolutely. 

The one thing that we know for certain is that soon after treatment (8 days) the treated hives showed increases greater than the control group. What would have been the increase in the treated hives a day or two following the treatment? How about 8 hours following treatment? I don't think that it takes a whole lot of commen sense to state that the treated hives had to show an increase after treatment, it is physically impossible for that not to be true. 

The problem that I have with this study is that they are only using 3 data points to define a trend. That is not a very well designed study. Why didn't they take samples on a more frequent basis? They should have pulled samples at least once a week to generate a larger body of data that would represent the real story.


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

This is a funny conversation. I've helped the commercial near me pull supers, and after I pulled supers he came through and treated then put the top back on the hive. In the spring, I've helped him super and he pops the top, treats, then I add supers... 

So is this turning into a conversation about having to treat (OA) while supers are on? OA doesn't significantly affect your uncapped honey if you use it with honey supers on. Plenty of studies have been done on this subject. However the fact of the matter is if you use OA off label (if in fact the label says remove supers before use) you are in violation of the law, end of story.

OA is probably one of the safest and most innocuous treatments we can use on our bees for mites. I love it because of that. Never forget to use your safety equipment.:gh:


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

rwurster said:


> OA doesn't significantly affect your uncapped honey if you use it with honey supers on.


Sorry for belaboring the point, but your statement just hit me. OA does not significantly impact capped honey. Yes, yes, yes. But somewhere along the line this got twisted into "untreated hives have higher levels of OA than treated hives". :no::no::no:

I love OA too and think it will become a huge advancement in beekeeping technology. 

Time for bed.


----------



## IronBee (Mar 21, 2014)

Nabber86 said:


> but nobody can tell me that leaving the supers on is a good thing


Like I said, there are other studies out there, many in fact. Have a look for yourself... my point (which you apparently now agree with?) still stands : *OA is safe to use with honey supers on.*

Now, if you want to debate legality of the situation I believe you need to better understand what you are referencing. EDIT: I was incorrect, here is the actual label.
The EPA has posted a label that mirrors other pesticide labels. This is entirely besides the reality of the situation, where it is impossible to enforce because it is impossible to detect. So please, drop the "in violation" dance. It's as if you are unaware of the massive frequency of legal violations that have been occurring for decades in regards to dangerous miticide usage, _entirely without incident. _

Moreover, In the EPA's own evaluation and approval for OA they clearly indicate that they hold no opinion or evaluation of keeping honey supers on, by stating that the _"use pattern for this compound"_ is applied during early spring or late fall (broodless times) ... cleverly but understandably sidestepping coming to a conclusion on the matter due to what their own document refers to as a _"review of [the] application was conducted under a greatly expedited process"_ This is why I have stated that parties involved who do not suggest OA with honey supers are simply playing the CYA game do to their own lack of research on the matter. Research that has occurred occurred before, multiple times already, but they cannot recommend it until they themselves perform it.

Regardless of the EPA covering themselves, they immediately state after the typical pattern of usage that _"Dietary exposure from the proposed use of in-hive application will be indistinguishable from naturally occurring levels of Oxalic Acid. Moreover, the EPA has established an exemption from the food tolerance requirement for Oxalic Acid 40 CFR 180.910."_

*Bottom line:* Despite being a violation of federal law, science shows it's safe to use with honey supers on and it's entirely undetectable (after a few days) if you do.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

IronBee said:


> In approving OA, the FDA has posted ....


IronBee, the FDA did _not _approve oxalic acid for use as a varroa control in beehives. *It was the EPA *that approved oxalic acid. And the EPA made that approval with the restriction that _honey supers be removed_/blocked off during the application of oxalic acid. If you follow your own links far enough you can read the sample EPA product label that says do not apply with honey supers on. If you have difficultly finding that passage, say so, and I will provide a direct link. Remember, use of an approved pesticide in a manner _inconsistent with the label_ is a violation of federal law.


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

I should clarify that I vaporize (OAV) and have never dribbled. The FDA remark was hopefully a mistake meant to be EPA. It did make me laugh though :lpf:


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

IronBee said:


> Now, if you want to debate legality of the situation I believe you need to better understand what you are referencing.
> 
> In approving OA, the FDA has posted *how to make a label* for a specific product that is sold on the shelves of stores - which is not the same as applying to any off the shelf usage of OA. Go ahead - search the FDA's database of legally applicable labels for it, you won't find it. This is entirely besides the reality of the situation, where it is impossible to enforce because it is impossible to detect. So please, drop the "in violation" dance.
> 
> ...


Nope, the dance is on. 

The EPA registered OA as a pesticide for mites last March. You might want to read the lable before use give out legal advice. It is a violation of federal law to leave the supers on when treating with OA. 

http://nybeewellness.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/oxalic-label-final.pdf


----------



## IronBee (Mar 21, 2014)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> IronBee, the FDA did _not _approve oxalic acid for use as a varroa control in beehives. *It was the EPA *that approved oxalic acid. And the EPA made that approval with the restriction that _honey supers be removed_/blocked off during the application of oxalic acid. If you follow your own links far enough you can read the sample EPA product label that says do not apply with honey supers on. If you have difficultly finding that passage, say so, and I will provide a direct link. Remember, use of an approved pesticide in a manner _inconsistent with the label_ is a violation of federal law.


Argh.. yea I meant EPA not FDA. lol Idk how I did that.. Every page was saturated in "EPA" :facepalm:
Also, I stand corrected, there is an actual label so I've edited my post to reflect such.

Again though, the reason why they make that suggestion is only because of the aforementioned expedited review process and _not _because they have studies that provide evidence for their stance. Because they do not.
Yet, multiple studies that suggest that there is no cause for concern..


As for "violation of federal law" people can keep saying it like it actually means something... but ordinance hasn't stopped beekeepers for decades. Most I know don't register their bees, and most get their miticide through illegal means, and use it illegally. (OA is their path out of that scenario thank god) _It's the reality of the situation_, and while I applaud the information being brought forth for others to read, the reality and relevance of the matter needs to be equally considered.
With no way to even get caught using OA, it's going to be even more of an issue than amitraz in honey if it is in fact dangerous...(doubtful) So it'd be really great if more studies could be done to finally lay this to rest until EPA can get its act together and not just lump oxalic acid in with all of EPA's current pesticide labeling requirements, and actually give informed *research based* labeling.

So yes.. _It is a violation of federal law_ - just like xyz that has been illegal for beekeepers for the past decades. Goodluck getting caught using OAV on your honey supers... I'll eat my hat the day there's proof a beekeeper has a) hurt someone from use of OAV with honey supers on _OR _b) a beekeeper is able to be caught using OAV with honey supers on. 
There's just no way to enforce this "violation" that was implemented just so the EPA could cover its own behind from an expedited review process.

So please... inform people it's a violation, sure, but don't pretend like it actually means something in reality. Give the complete and entire picture: explain how it's impossible to be caught (due to the how naturally occurring OAV is) and the studies that exist, and the process that OAV was actually registered. Else, you discourage the use of an outstanding, cheap, safe alternative to existing dangerous miticide solutions because of a scary punchline that has no basis in reality and is not backed by science, but rather politics.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

OK, a simple question .... instead of all that posturing, why don't you just slip some thin sheet material (a correx plastic 'political sign', for instance) between the brood nest and honey supers before doing the vaporization?


----------



## wild-b (Apr 23, 2014)

That was about the first response from my post Rader and I was fine with that. Was all I needed to know and it turned into this. So I just set back and enjoyopcorn:


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

I wonder who was the first person who thought............. What if I try OA to kill mites? I've looked and can't find it............


----------



## wild-b (Apr 23, 2014)

Not sure but I'll bet they didn't think it would turn into such a big deal. Kind like putting Bees in a box


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

wild-b said:


> That was about the first response from my post Rader and I was fine with that. Was all I needed to know and it turned into this. So I just set back and enjoyopcorn:


Yup, sometimes BS turns into a measuring contest. It can be fun to watch from the sidelines .......... then it gets old....


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> OK, a simple question .... instead of all that posturing, why don't you just slip some thin sheet material (a correx plastic 'political sign', for instance) between the brood nest and honey supers before doing the vaporization?


maybe IronBee should sign the above post complete with name, address, telephone contact


----------



## TurnTex (Mar 6, 2015)

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is that there are still a majority of states as far as I have found that have not approved OA for use in bees. That makes it against the law in that state the way I understand it. I do not believe Texas has approved it and I know the Savogran I bought is not legal! Is that going to stop me from using it, heck no!

If anyone has an up to date list of states that have approved it, I would love to see it!


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

If anyone has an up to date list of states that have approved it, I would love to see it![/QUOTE]

Go to brushy mountains website, they have them listed there.


----------



## cgybees (Apr 20, 2015)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> OK, a simple question .... instead of all that posturing, why don't you just slip some thin sheet material (a correx plastic 'political sign', for instance) between the brood nest and honey supers before doing the vaporization?


I suspect the answer is because they want to treat all the bees in the hive, not just the ones that weren't in the supers.. and knocking them down is a lot more labour intensive and problematic also. And I'm finding this thread fascinating, and considering selling tickets and making popcorn..


----------



## TurnTex (Mar 6, 2015)

snl said:


> If anyone has an up to date list of states that have approved it, I would love to see it!


Go to brushy mountains website, they have them listed there.[/QUOTE]

I found the information. Currently OA is only legal in New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. All the rest of us are just as big of outlaws as the guys wanting to use it with supers on! Now if you are not in one of the states above and us OA WITH supers on, you are a double dog outlaw!


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

The EPA passes national laws on pesticides and then each state has then,power to further regulate the pesticide. If the EPA approves any pesticide, any state can say no, we won't allow it. All the EPA is saying that they approve the use. They can't force a state to allow the use.


----------



## Dunkel (Jun 12, 2009)

Anyone bought OA from brushy mt.?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

IronBee said:


> Again though, the reason why they make that suggestion is only because of the aforementioned expedited review process and _not _because they have studies that provide evidence for their stance. Because they do not.
> Yet, multiple studies that suggest that there is no cause for concern..


the EPA doesn't work that way. They test the product to see if it is safe for human health and the environment. Then when developing the lable, they put in all kinds of other boiler plate items that are not tested. Also as far as the expidited thing goes, what that means is they moved the paper work to the top of the stack. It does not mean that they rushed through the testing process and missed some things.

Things like:
do not apply when children are present
keep household pets inside during treatment
wear a long sleeve shirt 
were shoes
Do not use when smoking
and in this case, remove the supers 

None of these types of things are tested. It's more or less common sense. They are not going to do a test to determine if it _does not _ harm children or dogs, even if there is evidence to the contrary. 

As far far as the violation of federal law, you are right, no backyarder is going to get caught, probably. The labling is really developed for commercial applications, but it still applies to everyone else (they are not going to make another lable for home use. Personally I am probably not going to use a respirator and I will likely be chewing tobacco while I am working (another no-no). Buuuuuuut.....

Here is a real scenario where a commercial outfit can get into big trouble. Suppose you have a very large operation and hire a bunch of migrant workers to help out during the treatments. Say one of the workers removes his shirt because it is too hot. The worker accidently spills some of the liquid OA solution on his arm and gets some chemical burns. Maybe some of the liquid splashes in his eyes because he forgot to put on safety glasses. The guy then goes to a clinic for treatment. The doctor washes the affected areas, flushes his eyes out, and maybe prescribes a burn ointment and some pain pills. Well now you have an OSHA reportable incident on your hands. OSHA investigates and finds out about the shirt and no glasses. During the investigation, a couple of the workers mention that not all of the supers were removed while treating. Now you have at least 3 OSHA violations on your hands and possibly several other violations when they start poking around (say they find a bottle of OA that is improperly stored, or tubs of half empty wood bleach that your were using before OA was approved for use).

Since it involves a pesticde, they call in the EPA so that they can do their investigation. Now your have OSHA and the EPA on your ass. You can bet there are going to fines; lots of them. One for each violation from each agency. You could loose your license to operate (if that is something required in your area). They can also shut down your operation (by court order) until they decide that you are fit to operate. 

This is kind of scenario plays out every day in the US (not just beekeeping, but all other operations where workers use chemicals of all kinds).

EDIT: Oh and I forgot about the part where the working files a workman's comp claim and after seeing all the hubbub regarding the incident, follows up with a civil suit claiming that his vision has been permanantly impaired.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

TurnTex said:


> Go to brushy mountains website, they have them listed there.


I found the information. Currently OA is only legal in New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. All the rest of us are just as big of outlaws as the guys wanting to use it with supers on! Now if you are not in one of the states above and us OA WITH supers on, you are a double dog outlaw! [/QUOTE]

And the reason Brushy Mountain only sells the product at their store is that it would be a violation for them to ship it to a state that has not approved it's use. Selling to you in person is OK because what you do with it after you leave the store is your problem. You open yourself up to interstate commerce regulations if you cross state lines, use the product, and happen to get caught.


----------



## wild-b (Apr 23, 2014)

cgybees said:


> I suspect the answer is because they want to treat all the bees in the hive, not just the ones that weren't in the supers.. and knocking them down is a lot more labour intensive and problematic also. And I'm finding this thread fascinating, and considering selling tickets and making popcorn..


Hey this is my tread and any selling of tickets or popcorn will be done by me opcorn:


----------

