# Taktic



## LT

Anyone ever use or hear of TAKTIC to be used on bees for mite control?


----------



## Michael Palmer

The active ingredient is Amitraz. At one time, Amitraz strips were available...similar to Apistan(Fluvalinate). The strips were taken off the market because of a large bee kill, said to be caused by the strips. I believe the problem was with something in the strip, not the Amitraz. 

Taktic is used in homemade chipboard strips, sometimes rotated with Mavrik(Fluvalinate).


----------



## LT

Anyone got a formula on how to make these and the amount of taktic?


----------



## sqkcrk

Michael Palmer said:


> The active ingredient is Amitraz. At one time, Amitraz strips were available...similar to Apistan(Fluvalinate). The strips were taken off the market because of a large bee kill, said to be caused by the strips. I believe the problem was with something in the strip, not the Amitraz.
> 
> Taktic is used in homemade chipboard strips, sometimes rotated with Mavrik(Fluvalinate).


The manufacturer took them off the market because they were sued by some beekeepers and no longer wanted the exposure. I don't know if anyone actually determined if the strips were the cause of the bee mortality.

They still make the cattle ear tags that came off of the same assembly line as the strips for bees. Or the other way around, I guess.


----------



## sqkcrk

Hey Mike,
What's up w/ the OA treatments? I hear you aren't seeing the effects you'd like to anymore?


----------



## Michael Palmer

>Hey Mike,
What's up w/ the OA treatments? I hear you aren't seeing the effects you'd like to anymore?<

Pshew! News travels fast in the north country.

No, I'm not going to vaporize OA this year. I'm not seeing good results. Did it 3 years in a row. @004, and 2005 in mid-November. 2006 three times in September, and again in Mid-November. High mite loads in the spring. 

Not sure why it doesn't work for me. Perhaps the temps are too cold, and the clusters are too tight, and the OAv can't penetrate into the cluster. Perhaps the bees aren't broodless...although I think most are broodless or mostly broodless by mid-November. Another possibility would be the depth of the bottom board. The vaporizer sits just below the bottom bars. The wooden ones burn, and the plastic ones melt. Maybe the vapors are condensing on the bottom bars, or maybe the wax melts into the pan and effects the results. Seems like a lot of vapor coming out the top entrance, though.

Medhat is designing a new vaporizer. Uses forced air to inject the vapors into the cluster. Maybe that will work better. I'll wait for the results. Wish I could trickle OA. My bees are wrapped for winter by the time they are broodless in mid-November. And if they aren't wrapped, and it snows much, I'll never get to them to do the work.


----------



## odfrank

>>>>"All honey boxes are to be removed while treating. NOTICE I do not condone using the Tactic/Amitraz treatment for obious reasons."

I'm glad that I produce my own drug free honey so that I don't have to eat any of your guy's. Nothing like breaking the pesticide laws and probably polluting your crop. Feel sorry for your customers.


----------



## Axtmann

When using Tactic there is only one treatment necessary and you kill mites for several years. What’s happen after this is not a secret …> the mites kill your colonies. 

Your combs working like a sponge and the poison will sit in the wax for years. The contamination will get lower by the years and this is the time where mites getting resistance.

Bees store honey in combs like this and your customers don’t know it. There are so many other possibilities to treat a hive without contaminating your customers.


----------



## suttonbeeman

amatraz breaks down much quicker than apistan(flavonate..sp) as its half life is short. I dont use chemicals at all unless it is a emergency. I perfer instead to use thymol and formic acid but if the temperature stays above 90 like this year you gotta do something and remember.......its all about $$$........the chemical make a killing off us.look at he cost of formic and miteaway pads. My honey was tested for all chemicals this spring including pesticides and tylan.........guess what I was CLEAN!!!!


----------



## Keith Jarrett

suttonbeeman said:


> amatraz breaks down much quicker than apistan(flavonate..sp) as its half life is short.
> 
> Suttonbeeman, thats very true.
> 
> Probably the safest non leagal chem out there.
> 
> Safer than check-mite or apistan.


----------



## Michael Palmer

*Amitraz Safer Than Fluvalinate?*

>Safer than check-mite or apistan.<

Keith, are there any studies on how Fluvalinate and Amitraz effect the bees? At EAS this summer, one report compared Fluvalinate and Coumaphos and controls and their effect on honeybee reproduction. 

The chemicals were present during the entire cell building/mating period. Coumaphos...of course...killed all the queen cells. What I found interesting was that Fluvalinate and the controls were statistically identical. There was no effect on queen cells, virgins, ability to mate, or viability of semen.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Micheal,

Both strips fowl the comb up from what I have been told.
Taktic is a quick blast then gone,from what I've read it does not hurt the combs and leaves no traces in the combs.

Is taktic hard on queens, I think so.

The point I was trying to make was , just because it's legal does not mean it's safer.


----------



## Dave W

AMITRAZ

Chemical Class - Amadine

Description - A behavior-affecting compound in the formamidine group of chemicals. Target site is octopamine receptor, which serves as a “fight or flight” neurohormone in arthropods. Varroa do NOT respond immediately to amitraz. Mortality can be expected over several days following treatment [Ref 16, p186]. 

Health Effects - Amitraz is classified by the EPA in the US as Class III – Slightly Toxic.

Lethal Dose to kill 50% (LD50) - Rats: 523-800mg/kg (oral); >1600mg/kg (dermal) 

Residue - Amitraz is a fat-soluble compound, but unlike other such compounds used as varroacides, it is volatile and unstable in honey, degrading in 3-4 weeks. Amitraz has therefore not been found as a residue in honey. Beeswax appears to accelerate the degradation of amitraz, with the product not being detectable within hours of application. Amitraz was not detectable when added at 100ppm in beeswax foundation, although fluvalinate and coumaphos were present in levels similar to the amount added. 

Maximum residue levels (MRLs) for amitraz in honey range from 0.01ppm in Italy, Germany and Switzerland to 1ppm in the US. The EU level is 0.2ppm140. No MRL has been established for amitraz in beeswax, since the substance has never been found as a residue in beeswax. 

Resistance - To date (2001), Varroa resistant to Amitraz have not been detected [Ref 16, p187]. 
Amitraz was found to be ineffective in killing mites in the former Yugoslavia, even though the product provided good mite control in the 4 previous years. The mites were believed to be resistant to amitraz. Amitraz resistance was also confirmed in a population of mites in the US that showed resistance to fluvalinate38. Amitraz resistance has been shown in laboratory assays.


----------



## Dave W

Bernie . . .

Sorry, I dont have any recipes.

FWIW, I think Taktic contains only 12.5% amitraz. If you used something that contained a different amount, say 100% or ony 1%, the "recipe" would be different anyway.

You do realize that amitraz/Taktic is NOT a legal treatment in the U.S.?

Have you "heared" what they do to "mountain fellers" that "go against" the law


----------



## Bernie

*taktic*

Dave, 
The taktic I have is in fact 12.5% amitraz. I'm tinkering with a recipe. I do realize that taktic is not approved by the "govment". The government tends to only approve those chemicals offered by the chemical companies. I don't even think the government has formally approved powdered sugar as a treatment. Nevertheless, I believe that when the day comes that beekeepers stop experimenting, innovating, and creating different ways of doing things will be the day we can all hang it up. Regarding the clear liquid in mason jars, I have an agreement with the revenue folks. I tend bees and let Jack Daniels pay alcohol taxes. Peace.


----------



## Dave W

>I believe that when the day comes that beekeepers stop experimenting, innovating, and creating different ways of doing things will be the day we can all hang it up . . .

When you first sign on to BeeSource, there is a note about Adee Honey Farms
having to pay $14,000 for the illegal "experimenting, innovating, and creating different ways of doing things" w/ oxalic acid.

Have you read the article?

>I tend bees and let Jack Daniels pay alcohol taxes . . .

You are a good man


----------



## suttonbeeman

Well but bernie.......I will also disagree that taktic takes time to work.....I rolled a colony with a high mite count....70 mites to about 300 bees......rolled 2 days after treating with taktic......6 mites! yep Adee got caught.....but Ill bet with his numbers of bees he is $$$$$$$ ahead if he had bought legal strips and not paid a fine vs using same chemical and paying fine.....like Bernie said....chemicals are approved AFTER CHEMICAL companies pay $$$$ then rip us off.......just look at cost of a wquart of maverick vs strips!!


----------



## Barry

lake thompson honey said:


> another guy fogs his hives with a mixture of taktic and fgmo.


The crazy things people do . . . .

http://www.intervet.co.in/products/taktic__12_5_/020_product_details.asp


*Precautions* :

AVOID WORKING IN SPRAY MIST


. . . . Hello!!


----------



## jim lyon

*amitraz (tactic)*

Sometimes I feel like the only commercial guy who is not using this stuff. I have resisted using it for years because something just dosen't feel right about using something that the only real information I have on it is anecdotal evidence from beekeepers that seem to be having good results with it. I am not looking for a pat on the back or compliments or anything like that, I just wish I understood why there is not either an outcry against it and the problems it may be causing or a push to legalize it because it (supposedly) dosen't leave residues or cause any other bee issues. I suppose the knee jerk reaction from most is that you would have to be crazy to use it but could it, perhaps, be another Tylan where the beekeeper was way out front of it's approval. So what gives does anyone know of any real scientific research that has been done on its effects on a bee hive?


----------



## Panhandle Bee man

No studies that I know of, however anecedtal evidense suggests that you get the same results as those who used fluvinate, and coumaphos. It stops working, so you pour more into your hive, then you go onto the next big thing. I know some of the commericial guys that used it, also were the biggest outfits that lost bees to CCD. hmmmmm.


----------



## Barry

jlyon said:


> So what gives does anyone know of any real scientific research that has been done on its effects on a bee hive?


http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/chaney/index.htm


----------



## Grant

Okay, I read the report on toxicity. Tactic is permethrin. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The study demonstrated that permethrin was the most toxic of the four chemicals available when the report was completed in 1988.

The study fed chemically-laced sugar syrup, which is different IMHO than soaking cloths or strips in permethrin and placing them in a hive. The study took place almost 20 years ago and I wonder what changes have occurred in the world of bee genetics and what alterations have taken place in the chemical formulations that would generally transcend the findings of this study.

Anyone else read this report and come to some other conclusions?

Grant
Jackson, MO


----------



## Kieck

Taktic contains amitraz, not permethrin. Amitraz is an amidine. Permethrin is a pyrethroid.

As far as the government only approving chemicals offered by chemical companies, believe me that Taktic (or amitraz in any other form) is offered by chemical companies. Who else would produce it?

"Powdered sugar" is considered a food, not a pesticide, and therefore does not require EPA registration as a pesticide.


----------



## jim lyon

I can only agree with the last two posts. Apparently no real research has been done on Amitraz and its effects on queens, mites, residues etc. Unfortunately, as with all home remedies, it is applied in many different concentrations and applied in so many different ways (even one report of spraying on at full strength) I fear that another potentially good weapon may just end up being ineffective before much longer. Hopefully the purity of our products (primarily honey and beeswax but also pollen) isn't compromised as a result.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I can only agree with the last two posts. Apparently no real research has been done on Amitraz and its effects on queens, mites, residues etc.

I believe it was used (and I assume tested) extensively in Europe and it's presence in honey and wax is often tested for because it is in common use. I haven't tried to research this, since I had no intentions of using it, but that's the impression I was under.


----------



## Ishi

I think that the USDA has limits for it in honey left over from when it was approved for use in bees. When some keepers in Florida (I think) lost hives and sued the company the company pulled the product but the USDA never withdrew the limits for Amitraz.


----------



## Panhandle Bee man

I have asked around to some of the bigger beekeepers I know. Most said they used to use it. But all have stopped. Mites do develop resistance to Taktic, Some large honey buyers do test the honey for it, they all had heard of One Beekeeper, who had a load of honey turned away (66 Barrels) because of contamination (No one knew who that unfortunate guy was rumor/fact?). But Taktic has been widely used, and is still in use. And several beeks said it keeps shb in check also.


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

Ever wonder why someone, way back when, affixed the word 'pure' to honey. I suspect it was to differentiate his honey from that other stuff.

Come on guys, the mavrik, taktic thing was an admitted mistake made by the 'big boys' almost 20 years ago! Most that did it bypassed the pesticide treadmill in favor of the pesticide landslide. Then, inspectors, consumers, etc. knew little about this. And those who did, turned a blind eye. It was a different time when testing honey for contaminants was non-existent. And multiple treatment options were non-existent.

Repeat the mistakes of the past? Enjoy those same old results. Almost! Back then it was a fast way to contaminate bee equipment beyond use. And most of those guys quickly left beekeeping when bees couldn't thrive and then even survive in their stuff.

Today is a different situation. You could be out, even before the bees get poisoned out. When the fines, lawyers and the consumer lawsuits, disposal fees are settled, keeping bees might not be very profitable and certainly not much fun.

It's a new day. Learn from the past. Work smarter, not harder.

Regards
Dennis
Thinking it might be time for a "Really Truely Pure Honey"


----------



## Grant

My apologies for my confusion on the link posted to the toxicity study back on 10-13, and my response/question that follows. I must be on drugs myself. I got the names/chemicals mixed up, and in part, I thought the toxicity study was directly linked to our discussion on Taktic.

Grant
Jackson, MO


----------



## Panhandle Bee man

I heard that there will be more beekeepers added to the Adee story on the home page. States are cracking down on the unlabeled use of pesticides by beekeepers.


----------



## AstroBee

D. Murrell said:


> It's a new day. Learn from the past. Work smarter, not harder.
> 
> Regards
> Dennis
> Thinking it might be time for a "Really Truely Pure Honey"




Thank you Dennis for posting this response! I've been reading this thread most of the time with my jaw dropped and not believing that this is still an "accepted" practice. I just don't have enough history to put it in perspective as you did so well. I know that my customers are more than willing to pay a premium price for "Really Truly Pure Honey".


----------



## LT

So it is the same as commercial fishing. We either add the price for the government approved treatments in to sell our honey or keep our prices low and we might get by without a profit on our honey sales. Who checks the imported honey for chemicals? 
Comparing it to commercial fishing and shrimping the imports are putting true blooded Americans out of business due to price. It is a shame that imports of shrimp, etc. are cheaper than some one in the STATES trying to make an honest living fishing and can not make it. Imported honey is in the same boat.
Pull together and raise the price to treat by government standards or do it as a hobby as I am. Just trying to keep my bees alive.


----------



## Aspera

My proposed solution is simple. We should do as we have for all other food products....Manditory testing of all wholesale honey for any chemical that may be used as a medicinal treatment and poses a risk to human health. That applies to imports as well as domestics. Guess what...that strategy works as well: Every year thousands of pounds of tainted milk, meat, fish, poultry, fruit and vegetables from the states and abroad are withdrawn from the market and the producers fined. I don't like government regulation, but Adee's and others on this website have shown it to be necessary.


----------



## Kieck

Interesting point, there, at the end of Aspera's post:

Do you (anyone, not just Aspera) believe that mandatory testing would have caught Adee Honey Farms?

The chemicals they were caught using illegally were fluvalinate (different formulation, but would likely leave the same residue in any honey as the legal form) and oxalic acid (which some proponents of OA claim is a chemical naturally found in honey anyway).


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

Seems like I remember a time when most American beekeepers were repeating the 'dirty offshore honey chant' in response to some cheap, tainted import honey that flooded the American market.

To differentiate America's 'pure honey' from the other stuff, some on the Honey Board suggested a quality assurance program for American honey. The results.....silence from the American beekeeping community. No quality assurance, ie testing for domestic honey, wanted here!

Wonder why not, if we produce the clean stuff? I don't because I've been around commercial beekeeping for more than 35 years. 

Now, the offshore producers have cleaned up their act. Or maybe found ways to appear so. But I know we American beekeepers can do better.

I've know from personal experience that bees can thrive and still remain clean. The information is out there for anyone who desires to do the same. 

Costs? Profit? Beekeepers are squeezed to the low economic end throughout the world, as are most primary agricultural producers. The difference some are willing to live in a muddy field with a leaky tent as their shelter. Others can't live without their new 4 wheel drive pickup.

How to survive? Produce a clean, niche market honey and value add to it. Think Whole Foods rather than Sam's Club. Or forget honey and pollinate almonds. The almond guys don't care whether the bees or honey are clean.

Some Thoughts
Dennis


----------



## lake thompson honey

well what would you do if you were adee honey farms and had 100,000 hives of bees?


----------



## Aspera

I would divide my operation into organic honey production and pollination. On the honey end, lobby for higher standards. On the pollination end, use this operation as a sink for hives that must be treated. Unfortunately, I feel that the Chinese learned ALL of their dirty tricks from us. Chinese honey is cheap because Chinese labor is cheap and we haven't been able to automate much of beekeeping. They just took their cues from us that tainted honey is A.O.K. for everything that corn syrup can't do.


----------



## Kieck

I don't know if by "organic" you mean "certified organic" or not. Here (not very far at all from the business headquarters of Adee Honey Farms) "certified organic" -- even if there was such a designation for honey -- would be a practical impossibility. Finding any location with a three-mile radius of "all organic" crops would be very, very difficult, compounded by looking for a roadless area (all roadways around here are sprayed with herbicides and some insecticides around here), compounded still further by seeking such sites for many, many hives. 

Again, I say, concerning Adee's fines specifically and any proposed "higher standards," how would you distinguish "off-label fluvalinate" from "label fluvalinate?" How do you tell oxalic acid added to the honey through fogging/dribbling from oxalic acid that occurs naturally in honey?

And, how do you keep your bees from foraging in fields that might be sprayed with pesticides like Taktic?


----------



## odfrank

Kieck said:


> I don't know if by "organic" you mean "certified organic" or not. .....be sprayed with pesticides like Taktic?


...of course, a hive saturated with an unlabled pesticide is much more likely to pollute honey than a hive in which foragers have come in contact with a pesticide.


----------



## Kieck

Absolutely.

Two items, though:

1) "Certified organic," a USDA designation, means that livestock are only fed "certified organic" feed, too. In the case of a certified organic dairy farm, that means that the cows must be fed certified organic crops to produce certified organic milk.

2) Unlabeled or labeled, the active ingredient is the same, and detection methods would pick either/both up equally. Fluvalinate applied as an unlabeled formulation or fluvalinate applied as "Apistan" or fluvalinate encountered by foragers in the field: they're all the same active ingredient. The concentrations in honey might differ, but the ingredient would not.

So, where do we set the standards for pesticides in honey? Zero? Then very few, if any, of us would be able to legally sell honey. Limited to certain concentrations of labeled pesticides and lower concentrations of pesticides that might be encountered by the foraging bees? Then we're still left with the problem of detecting unlabeled formulations of pesticides that also have labeled formulations as miticides in bee hives (i. e. fluvalinate).


----------



## Jim Fischer

A bunch of posts back, Mike said:

> Coumaphos...of course...killed all the queen cells. What I found 
> interesting was that Fluvalinate and the controls were statistically identical. 
> There was no effect on queen cells, virgins, ability to mate, or viability of 
> semen.

That's not surprising at all - Coumaphos is an organophosphate.
The rest of agriculture is moving away from the use of organophosphate
pesticides due to the cumulative neurological damage that results from
the cumulative impact of minuscule levels of exposure. Beekeeping may
be the last segment of agriculture to still be using an organophosphate.

Fluvalinate is a much more simple pesticide.
Not a "nerve agent" at all.


----------



## Barry

Listen to just the first couple of minutes of this and hear about the effects of coumaphos.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3081789258595842918&pr=goog-sl


----------



## Kieck

Interesting note here, while we're on the topic of coumaphos.

Coumaphos, sold as CheckMite+, is under "Section 18" approval from the EPA, not a registered chemical, but an emergency treatment. My understanding of this, both from people who help oversee chemical registration and from chemical industry administrators, is that Section 18s are passed because of pressure from the _users_, not the chemical industries. Each year, Section 18 approval must be passed again. One of the experts mentioned to me, "It's had a Section 18 for more than a year or two? Those beekeepers must have some strong leverage!"


----------



## Aspera

Kieck, you are confusing residue testing with usage law. Residue testing is only concerned with residues, not how they ended up in the product. And yes, by organic, I mean "certified organic". Frankly, I think that its a little self-serving to ask people for what they would do and then claim that all responders propose thet impossible.


----------



## Kieck

Aspera,

I'm probably not making myself clear on this one.

"Residue testing" is one matter. I understand that. What comes out of this, though, is the expectation -- from this thread, if you go back and read it again -- that incidents such as Adee's use of unlabeled pesticide will be detected and "deterred" by residue testing. 

So, here's what we're up against ("self-serving" or not): in this country, _all_ honey is likely to have pesticide residues. For cryin' out loud, virtually all drinking water in this country has pesticide residues. So, we have to expect that. The question, then, is where we set the limits. Where do we set them?

See, I assume that since beekeepers are using fluvalinate (Apistan) in hives, the concentrations of fluvalinate detected by residue testing will be higher than, say, the concentrations of other pesticides. Right? So, either we have to permit greater concentrations of pesticides approved for use in bee hives, or we have to (for all practical purposes, anyway) no longer have approved pesticides for use in bee hives.

Then, if those concentration standards are higher, how could we possibly determine "on-label" versus "off-label" use of the same active ingredients?

Residue testing, as I see it, doesn't eliminate the problem of off-label pesticides being used in bee hives. At best, it would hopefully reduce the amount of contaminated honey reaching the market.


----------



## BEES4U

*Taktic 12.5 % and 5.0%*

ALTERNATIVE DISEASE TREATMENTS--RISKS INVOLVED
Dr.Eric Mussen in From the UC Apiaries, University of California, Davis says so-called "alternative" (unregistered and illegal) treatments make little sense to beekeepers. It all boils down to formulation of the product, he says, something companies must spend huge amounts of money developing, testing and registering. 

Administration and Dosage :
Taktic to be used as spray or dip
Animal	Taktic 12.5%/ L of water for ticks	Taktic 12.5%/ L of water for mites (mange), lice and keds
Cattle/Camel 2.0 ml 2.0 ml 
Sheep/Goat 4.0 ml 4.0 ml 
Pigs 4.0 ml 4.0 ml 


Taktic® 5%
Broad spectrum ectoparasiticide against ticks, mites, lice and keds.
________________________________________
Composition :
Each ml contains : Amitraz B.P (Vet) 50 mg
Indication :
Mites, Lice and Keds
Taktic kills tick and ectoparasites resistant to organochlorine, organophosphate and synthetic pyrethroid compounds
Administration and Dosage :
Taktic to be used as spray or dip
Parasite Mixing Rate / L of water
Ticks 6.0 ml
Lice 6.0 ml
Mites 10.0 ml

Regards,
Ernie
Lucas Apiaries


----------



## Barry

Bernie said:


> Regarding the potential harm to the hive, I can not detect any harm.


And what method are you using for detection?


----------



## Barry

florida pollinator said:


> Disclaimer:::: all of this afore mentioned stuff is for speculated informaitonal purposes only.


Wow, yes it is, this whole thread, and I'm embarrassed and sad that people continue to do the home brew approach and subject the industry to a less than wholesome product.


----------



## LT

*Taktic to Oil Ratio*

Anyone have the ratio of canola oil to taktic? Thanks


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

Taktic, not again!

The fact that this topic keeps cropping up shows just how endemic this approach is. It's what puts the PU in the PUre honey produced by a lot of American beekeepers.

To use this approach a beekeeper must be good at the lie. It must be applied in the purchase, use, and during the sell. It's good to practice saying, "on strawberries", "on sheep, cow and pigs", "natural", "healthful", "healing", "better than sugar", and do it without blushing or flinching.

One must also be clever and handle stress without loosing any sleep. For, who knows what's been left behind, or who has seen what while looking in the shop or into a hive.

And a beekeeper, using this approach must be very optimistic, thinking that the long term negative effects, historically experienced, are the result of an inadequate application. A little bit more of the stuff, applied more often, will result in success.

A beekeeper using this approach must suppress any sense of wonder. Never wonder what it might be doing to the bees. Never wonder what it might be doing to the honey. Never wonder what it might be doing to his family. Never wonder what it might be doing to his health. Or such a beekeeper might take some safety precautions. He might actually wear some protective equipment which would give himself and his methods away. Just keep repeating, "it nucs the mites but it won't harm a fly", especially while mixing it in a bucket with a wood stick behind the shop.

Finally, a beekeeper must really appreciate saving money. Just think of all the pesticide one can buy and spread around for such a small amount of money.

If a migratory pollinator wants to dump that junk in his hives and subject himself and family by such methods. Although illegal, it's his business and his risk. But I don't have any sympathy for him when he experiences the inevitable results. I would feel sorry for his family. And I don't buy used beekeeping equipment.

If that beekeeper looses control of those chems and they fall off the truck or end up in the environment, risking public health, he should be held liable.

And if that beekeeper sells any contaminated products from those hives, a stiff enough penalty should be applied so it won't happen again.

Come on guys, if your bees are resistant to fluvalinate, they are resistant to amitraz. Research conducted while approving checkmite documented this. I won't use the chemical name here as I think anyone using a homemade checkmite substitute should face some hard prison time. 

Beekeeping has come a long way since these approaches were developed over 20 years ago. There are methods, that are so much better for mite control, for product safety, for the beekeepers health and for the environment. Why accept anything else.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BEES4U

*Amitraz. The recommended dosage for use on honey bee colonies is*

ISSN 1814-1137
AGRICULTURAL
AND FOOD
ENGINEERING
AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD ENGINEERING TECHNICAL REPORT TECHNICAL REPORT
Honey bee diseases and pests:
a practical guide
4 4
TC/D/A0849E/1/11.06/550
It is obvious that apicultural industries play an important role
in generating employment opportunities and increasing family
income in the rural areas of the world. Control of diseases and
pests of honey bees is one of most challenging tasks in
improving quality of honey and honey bee by-products,
especially for the beekeepers in developing countries.
This publication describes common diseases and pests of
honey bees and their importance and provides a practical
guide to the basic technology available to beekeepers for
their control and prevention.
The publication is further evidence of the continuing
endeavours of FAO to promote beekeeping in developing
countries, as a low-cost means of improving local diets,
elevating purchasing power and diversifying rural activities.
Honey bee diseases and pests:
a practical guide


Here is some data that i got from a web search: Use with extream caustion.
Amitraz
Taktic and Mitac are trade names of products containing amitraz at different concentrations.

The recommended dosage for use on honey bee colonies is

sprayed lightly on bees, the comb surface of brood frames and hive walls.

The amount of the solution to be sprayed at each application depends on the size of the colony, but
is usually within the range of

Amitraz can also be used as a hive fumigant.

Strips of filter paper 2.5 x 9 cm are soaked in a

Note that amitraz can kill bees.

A major disadvantage of amitraz is that it has an ovicidal effect: when used
as a hive spray it will kill eggs.

It must therefore not be sprayed directly on frames containing a considerable
number of eggs or newly-hatched larvae.

Regards,
Ernie
Lucas Apiaries


----------



## BEES4U

*It is time that the industry spread the truth about amitraz.*

Eric Mussen
Entomology Extension
University of California
Davis, CA 95616

Discussions with beekeepers
lead me to believe that many of
them think that amitraz is an
effective chemical for controlling
tracheal mites. This idea may have
originated when another, no longer
available, plastic strip called
Miticur®, was registered for
tracheal mite control. The active
ingredient in that strip was
amitraz.
If you remember the history
of that strip, it was supposed to
knock back tracheal mite
infestations. However, one or more
large beekeeping operations lost
very large portions of their
operations when the strips failed
to control the mites. The
beekeepers sued the chemical
company for the losses and the
strips were removed from the
market.
A thorough reading of many
papers dealing with control of
tracheal mites with amitraz
(Ovasyn®, Mitac®, and Taktic®)
reveals that very few studies
resulted in good control, if the
amitraz was introduced as a
contact treatment. Many authors
had no luck reducing infestations,
unless the amitraz was used as an
aerosol spray or as a burning
“fume strip.”
Therefore, beekeepers who
have been relying on amitraz to
control their tracheal mite
infestations have not been getting
the results that they desire.
There was a time when amitraz did
control Varroa mites effectively,
but continued use of amitraz for
tracheal mite control (?) led to
selection for resistance to
amitraz in Varroa mites,
simultaneously to the selection
for resistance to fluvalinate.
So, this winter, it appears
that something prompted a resurgence
of tracheal mite outbreaks
in some beekeeping operations.
Treatments with amitraz made
little difference and the colonies
collapsed. It is time that the
industry spread the truth about
amitraz and tracheal mites:
contact applications of amitraz
(and its miniscule fumigant
action) do not control tracheal
mites.

Sincerely,
Eric Mussen
Entomology Extension
University of California
Davis, CA 95616
Phone: (530) 752-0472
FAX: (530) 752-1537
Email: [email protected]
URL:entomology.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mussen


----------



## LSPender

*? for BWrangler*

BWrangler, what methods, please elaborate on the current mite controls we should be looking at using.

Thanks, Larry Pender


----------



## Trevor Mansell

I have saved alot of hives using Tac-Tic in the past. I have sinced switched to using Api-gaurd and Formic . There is a away to mix Tac-Tic with shortening to make a little grease ball . I have never tried it but I heard it works very well.


----------



## Kieck

> The recommended dosage for use on honey bee colonies is [edit], sprayed lightly on bees, the comb surface of brood frames and hive walls.
> 
> -BEES4U


Actually, no "recommended" rate exists. Amitraz is not labeled for use in bee hives.

In other words, using amitraz in bee hives is illegal.



> Amitraz can also be used as a hive fumigant. -BEES4U


Not legally.

Whether or not it "works" is a different question, but it is not a legal treatment in bee hives. And it appears that amitraz does little to effectively control _Varroa_, or tracheal mites.


----------



## BWrangler

Hi LSPender,

I think the organic acids are the best bet. If I understand correctly, formic is approved. Oxalic isn't. They are effective, non-contaminating and cheap. The risk associated with them is in their proper application, where it should be.

Why oxalic acid remains in legal limbo is a mystery to me. I think it's been years since the EAS tossed it into the approval process. Where is it at? Seems like every six months or so, I hear the approval just around the corner.

Look at the time difference between Checkmite and Oxalic approval! Why should it be so hard to approve a replacement that's been proven, for decades, to be safe, effective, and non-contaminating? And look what it would be replacing - an organophosphate that the government has been trying to get out of circulation! I would think the government itself should be pushing the effort! 

Now for what I've seen. Many commercial beekeepers can't wait for a slip of paper and an approved organic acid, in an approved bag, sold by an approved bee organization. They are using it now. How are they using it? Most are dribbling it.

And I hope they are doing it by the numbers. Sloppy application won't cut it with the organic acids. They've got to be applied in the right dosage, in the right way, at the right time. It's not bee experimentation. The information is out there and it's well researched. Their use is documented. And it's been approved just about everywhere else except the USA.

Anyone know what's happening in Canada with oxalic?

So, what happens when the acids are used appropriately? It allows a beekeeper to treat mites in a safe and effective way without contaminating comb. It's then possible to clean up a operation by rotating pesticide contaminated comb out. That results in a great improvement in colony health.

So, what happens when they are used wrong. The bees suffer. The queen's life is shortened or she's killed. And in very extreme cases, a beekeeper can be injured. But there's little long term effect to the equipment, the beekeeper or the environment.

I fear that the American beekeeper will just use the organic acids as another vehicle for experimentation thinking if organic acids are so good, they would be even better with the addition of pesticide A + pesticide B + some cyanide + a little arsenic and a little cesium and a dash of plutonium :>))) 

And if it's a good treatment when applied properly, just image if it were applied continuously on shop towels or used in the smoker!!!!

Regards
Dennis
Thinking, if I had any political or economical clout, I'd be using my spurs on this one.


----------



## Kieck

> Amitraz. The recommended dosage for use on honey bee colonies is. . . -BEES4U


You're missing the point, Ernie. Amitraz is illegal for use in bee hives. Therefore, there is no "recommended rate." To have a label rate (a "recommended" rate), a product must be labeled for use in the manner you wish to use it. Since amitraz is not labeled for use in bee hives, there is no "recommended rate."

What is the "recommended rate" for chlordane in basements? What about the "recommended rate" for DDT on humans to control lice?

While those products may "work," they are not legal to use for those purposes. Therefore, no labeled application rate is "recommended."

Same goes for amitraz in bee hives. Suggesting that a "recommended rate" exists implies that amitraz can be used legally in bee hives. It cannot.


----------



## Bud Dingler

from randy olivers website




> The downside of amitraz is that it is somewhat more toxic to bees than fluvalinate, and shuts down the queen’s egglaying during treatment (Henderson 1998; pers comms). This is not surprising, since Bloomquist (1996) states, “Amidines cause an overstimulation of octopaminergic synapses in insects, resulting in tremors, convulsions, and continuous flight behavior in adult insects. Moreover, these compounds have the ability to cause a true anorexia in insects and also suppress reproduction.”
> 
> The upside to amitraz is that it degrades quickly in honey and beeswax (Fries, et al 1998), and therefore leaves virtually no residues (although one of its metabolites, DMF, is quite stable, and is a common contaminant of European honey (Shroeder, et al 2004)). Vesely, et al (2004) analyzed beeswax in the Czech Republic for amitraz and its degradation products. They concluded “these quantities do not present amitraz as hygienic risk for bees and for humans even after 20 years of its systematic application.”
> 
> I’ve spent some time trying to find any reason not to reregister amitraz as a varroacide in the U.S. I’m not a big synthetic chemical fan, but I think that amitraz deserves a second look. It works well against the mite, appears slow to promote resistance, doesn’t appear to contaminate honey or wax to any extent, and is relatively nontoxic to humans and bees.


----------



## magnet-man

Can you post a link to Randy's web site.

Found it.
http://randyoliver.com/


----------



## BEES4U

*What about the "recommended rate" for DDT on humans to control lice?*

Here is some reading for an evening.
I am not trying to stir up a controversy.

*I am very aware of the regulations and the miss use of registered chemicals.*

What is the "recommended rate" for chlordane in basements? 

What about the "recommended rate" for DDT on humans to control lice?


http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/urban/human_lice.htm

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/Mosquitoes.html
During the war in Europe, in 1944, we went to sleep every night while being fed upon by bedbugs and fleas, and there was no way to escape them. We had heard about “cooties” (body lice) causing typhus, which killed more than 3 million people in Europe and vicinity during and after World War I. 
One day, I was ordered to dust every soldier in our company with an insecticidal powder that had just been received. For two weeks I dusted the insecticide on soldiers and civilians, breathing the fog of white dust for several hours each day. The body lice were killed, and the DDT persisted long enough to kill young lice when they emerged from the eggs.

Fortunately, no human beings have ever been harmed by DDT. I later learned that the material was produced by a German chemist, Othmar Zeidler, in 1874. He had made hundreds of chemical compounds but he never suggested uses for any of them. Sixty years later, in Switzerland in 1939, Dr. Paul Müller was seeking chemicals that might kill insect pests, and he followed Zeidler’s written directions for preparing several compounds. One of them was a compound that Zeidler had labeled dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane. Müller called it “DDT,” and in 1948, he received the Nobel Prize for his work with that chemical.

Regards,
Ernie


----------



## dcross

On DDT, when I was in Madison an entomologist told us that one of his elderly colleagues used to eat DDT powder on crackers at their office parties.

He ended his story with "He's now over 80 and I STILL can't beat him at raquetball." He said the ban was largely because of bio-accumulation and declining effectiveness.


----------



## MichaelW

From what entomologists tell me, there's plenty of "dead from cancer entomologists" to contrast this fellows story with.

DDT certainly helped save many lives and suffering, now we are even more fortunate to not have to use this chemical any more due to developed alternatives and an understanding of the negative impacts of DDT.

There's plenty of old smokers out there that for whatever reason didn't die from cancer despite decades of smoking (yet). That doesn't mean smoking does not cause cancer.


----------



## Kieck

The problem I have with comments in this thread lies in the vein of, "You can't do this legally, and you shouldn't do this, so here's how to do this."

Some beekeepers have used sodium cyanide in their hives, too, so some information must exist on how much sodium cyanide effectively kills wax moths in stored honey comb, yet that doesn't make it "right" to use sodium cyanide in beehives.

Same with Taktic. Amitraz is not labelled for use in beehives. Therefore, it's illegal. Listing effective rates of amitraz applied against pests in beehives, to my way of thinking, suggests that amitraz can be used in beehives. It cannot, legally.


----------



## magnet-man

> Listing effective rates of amitraz applied against pests in beehives, to my way of thinking, suggests that amitraz can be used in beehives. It cannot, legally.


I think the better way to put it is:

Listing effective rates of amitraz applied against pests in beehives, suggests that amitraz can be used in beehives. It *can* but *not* legally.


----------



## BWrangler

Want to mix to your own? Got your own time proven formula?

You'd better watch M. Frazier's March 8th video first. Half way through the video, toxicity of fluvalinate and the different and conflicting LD/50 ratios are discussed. And much more is known about fluvalinate than is known about amatraz.

http://www.BeeUntoOthers.com/

Sure you still want to mix it up? Save a few dollars?
Good luck. You're going to need it. And if you do, I feel sorry for your bees!

Regards
Dennis
Thank you DeKnow for the video.


----------



## BEES4U

Sunday, June 13, 2010
Are their any up-dates on the use of Taktic?
Ernie


----------



## honeyshack

I know that i am a Canadian posting on this forum.
Apivar (Amitraz) is a product that has seen emergency registration in Canada. It was aproved last fall and this spring. The emergency registration runs out on June 30,2010. However the Canadian Honey council and several of the Beekeeper ogranizations are trying to get it extended. Treatment time for the strips is 42d
Personally I have not tried it, it is costly, and i like Mite Away 2.
On the Mite Away 2, I hear that Nod is cancelling making it due to the talked about quick strips, and the registration is running out. And the makers have decided on not renewing the registration on the MA2 However, as touted these quick strips are, they have yet to make it on the market. Nod is also not registering these quick strips, figuring if there is formic on the market, why do they have to register the product.
Come this fall we Canadian Beekeepers might not have many choices for treating mites.

And on a note on the Apivar, it is a contact treatment. So, where you put it can greatly increase it's effectiveness. Some beeks had poor results with the product. Upon questioning them, it was found they used it in the fall, put it in the top brood box. In the fall, the top brood box becomes full of honey or syrup. So the product was not reaching the bees on the brood. It is recommended to put it where the bees are. And if it gets cold, they cluster or go to the bottom box and look after the brood that is left, leaving the strips up top redering them ineffective.

So, I guess my point of this post is....If it is registered in Canada, why can the Americans not get their Honey Council...what ever you call it to go to the Government and get Apivar or what ever legalized? Lobby your honey council to get it together.


----------



## BEES4U

honeyshack,

Thank you for your up-date,
Ernie


----------



## Skinner Apiaries

Yup. Even the canucks have it. America, epic fail. I wonder if there is anyone with more than 50 hives that isn't using it....


----------



## BEES4U

Re: I wonder if
More than 50.
How about by the thousands!
Ernie


----------



## Skinner Apiaries

lol yea.


----------



## jim lyon

I dont use it. Glad to hear there are more members of the club.


----------



## Aurora

I've posted some info on Amitraz on the Info on Aitraz thread. Fitting, right?


----------



## Live Oak

This is an older thread and topic but I thought this link might be of interest with respect to the use of various mite treatment chemicals including Taktic in a comparison. Not sure if this is old news but I didn't see it in this thread. If I missed it and this is old info. My apologies. 

http://www.extension.org/pages/3084...ects-of-some-commonly-used-bee-hive-chemicals


----------



## jim lyon

Nice link liveoak interesting that they actually found more mites on hives treated with Coumaphous and copper naph. The brood viability numbers are also quite telling. It is a phenomena I have noted occasionally in the past. In treatments sometimes it seems more can be less.


----------



## max2

I came across this Thread because I noted " Tactic" - we have no Varoa here but reading the mix of chemicals some feel they need to use to keep bees make me wonder if I would want to kep bees?
Many years ago we used a product called Tactic on cattle for ticks and fleas - it got banned. If the stuff is bad for cattle , what will it do to bees?


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Apivar which is a strip similar in looks to Bayvarol is approved for use in New Zealand it's active ingredient is Amitraz we use it in Spring and use Bayvarol in Autumn.

It works perfectly and will help to slow down the spread of resistant mites by not using the same chemical in both Spring and Autumn treatments.

Anyone who uses miticides etc off label are brainless, it's a surefire way to accelerate resistance in your hives. 

With commercially produced treatments the dosage is exact and the correct amount of chemical is released over the reccommended period of time the treatments are in the hives. If you start chucking chemicals on coasters and other random things you have no control of the chemical release resulting in small dosages lingering on those coasters/pads until someone takes them out.

The perfect recipe for encouraging resistance


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Amitraz is on the trash heap of chems that were tried, worked by killing mites but harmed the bees. Let us all not repeat the past. There are newer softer chems on the market now that have great potential. Chems that I do not have to worry about poisoning some people with. I have not heard of anyone being poisoned by hops unless consumed in huge quantities which results in alcohol poisoning. Thyme also, most people have gargeled at one time or another with listerine. Amitraz failed do to too many unknowns about it effectivness. I was part of the mitacure class action lawsuit. TED Kretschmann


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Ted Amitraz may have harmed the bees when it was applied off label but it certainly has no ill effects on bees here in NZ.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

It will with time...........You are twenty years behind us chemical wise......


----------



## swarm_trapper

just wondering Ted, but how is or was amitraz harming your bees?


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

where you keeping bees back during the days of the mitacure strip? If you were, then you would know all about the damage illformulated products can cause. Killed alot of bees including mine. Soaking taktic on cotton balls, paper shop towels or paper plates is a recipe for disaster. This is an old chem that there is NO tolerance for if found in honey. TED


----------



## Skinner Apiaries

There's alot, and I mean ALOT, of commercials that would disagree. I can conservatively sat I know 20 grand run with traz. I dont use it but I do have experience with it, and that's because I'm trying to pretend low chem residuals lengthens queen life, and thanks to a nice lot of traz/fluvatine resistant mites. Yay for breeding super mites.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Sorry Skinner, I have NO desire to go back to my squirting Tac Tik on cotton ball days. TED


----------



## camero7

From Eric Mussen's Newsletter:
Chris Mullin and his cooperators at
Penn State University (ABJ Abstract #20)
have been reverse-engineering some pesti-
cide formulations and testing some of the
common “inert ingredi-ents” for honey bee
toxicity. N-methylpyr-rolidone (NMP) was
the first to be empha-sized. The researchers
found that NMP is toxic to honey bees,
especially so for brood. With a bit of NMP
in the commercial form-ulations, Bravo®
was four times as toxic to brood as the
active ingredient chlorothalonil is by itself.
*Tactik®also was four times as toxic to
brood as was straight Amitraz.* As I
mentioned earlier, it is going to be very
difficult to try to regulate pesticides based
on potential danger to bees when so many
inert ingredients and adjuvants are compli-
cating the picture.


----------



## Barry

Joe Traynor's newsletter in 1996 had this:

*"TAKTIK* (aka Amitraz)
Evidence is coming in that Taktik (or Amitraz) is of little or no help in controlling trachael. If you're using this material you may be kidding yourself."


----------



## sqkcrk

Anything more current relating to Varroa destructor?


----------



## Barry

I'm sure, but this is "heads up" for Frazzled


----------



## sqkcrk

Frazzled has t.mites? Are others using Taktik for varroa control fooling themselves too?


----------



## Barry

You're (your, Jor) probably right Mark. I'm thinking tracheal and most everyone else is thinking varroa. My mistake. I've been out of the treatment routine to long.


----------



## Skinner Apiaries

Traz is a nice treatment for VMite obviously, but with the lethal duality of thymol and formic, i.e. kills both mites, it's merely a calculated risk/cost saving move. Then again, I've NEVER had an abscond from traz. Can't say that for formic. Win some lose some. Either way I'm killin mites.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Ted Kretschmann said:


> where you keeping bees back during the days of the mitacure strip? If you were, then you would know all about the damage illformulated products can cause. Killed alot of bees including mine. Soaking taktic on cotton balls, paper shop towels or paper plates is a recipe for disaster. This is an old chem that there is NO tolerance for if found in honey. TED


Ted things have come a long way since the mitacure strip Amitraz as the active ingredient in Apivar strips has been used extensively in Beehives around the world with no ill effects. You can't compare using Tactic soaked cotton balls to Apivar strips they are not the same thing


----------



## BEES4U

FYI:
_Varroa_ has deveoped reisitance to Taktic at the sodium recepter level!


----------



## megank

Lethal Dose to kill 50% (LD50) - Rats: 523-800mg/kg (oral); >1600mg/kg (dermal) 

hmmm....Seems Alcohol is more deadly to rats than Amitraz....


----------



## megank

"Tactik®also was four times as toxic to
brood as was straight Amitraz."

That's because of the solvent used...Straight chain hydrocarbon solvents are a real killer


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Apivar is just our old mitacure strip come back to haunt us. The strip is the same, little hole up top, huh, for a nail to stick through it so you can hang it. Yep, just package it up in a nice looking package and give it a new name. I doubt you see that product back in use in the USA after what happened with it the first time around. Frazzled, have fun with Apivar-(mitacure) It took three years, then the conumdrum hit.....Did the strip kill the bees or did the strip not kill the mites, which then killed the bees? TED


----------



## BEES4U

sqkcrk said:


> Anything more current relating to Varroa destructor?


http://www.cheshire-bka.co.uk/News/VarroaResearch.php ( Date?)
Varroa Research

Two recent pieces of research throw more light on the question of the long term co-existence of Apis mellifera and Varroa destructor.

Dr Stephen Martin of Sheffield University spoke at the BIBBA meeting at Stoneleigh in April on the topic of Varroa tolerance and resistance.

It is now commonly accepted that it is the viruses for which Varroa is a vector which kill colonies. Viruses can exist in bees without causing problems—a condition named “inapparent infection”. If they were ingested, it would take about 100,000,000,000 virus particles to kill a bee. When transferred directly into the bee’s haemolymph by a Varroa mite, only 100 particles are required to cause disease. Infected bees often die away from the hive, leaving it empty, apart from the queen and a tiny number of attendants. Dr Martin then went on to speak of mite resistance to pyrethroids. There are three ways in which resistance could have developed:
1.by growing a thicker cuticle.
2.by producing a detoxifying enzyme in the blood to counteract the pyrethroid. 
3.by making changes to the sodium channel in the cell walls, so that the pesticide cannot enter the cells. 

Recent research suggests the third method is the route by which resistance has occurred, and that this happened in Sicily in just one mite, and all resistant mites are descended from this single mite. This logically means that Beekeepers are not responsible for the spread of resistant mites because of their misuse of chemicals, but because of their misuse of bees! Resistant mites have been spread around by beekeepers importing bees, in the same way as Varroa first reached these shores. All Varroa mites are virtually clones of one-another, since brother-sister mating means that they are genetically identical to one another. Thus, once having developed resistance by the sodium channel route, Varroa will never lose it. Bayvarol and Apistan will never work again, once resistance becomes established in an area. 

Thanks to Jim Ryan of the “Irish Beekeeper” for that report — via BEES.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Well Ted I will let you know next year if all our bees die as that will be our third year treating with Apivar.


----------



## Kieck

> FYI:
> Varroa has deveoped reisitance to Taktic at the sodium recepter level! -BEES4U





> Dr Martin then went on to speak of mite resistance to pyrethroids. There are three ways in which resistance could have developed:
> 1.by growing a thicker cuticle.
> 2.by producing a detoxifying enzyme in the blood to counteract the pyrethroid.
> 3.by making changes to the sodium channel in the cell walls, so that the pesticide cannot enter the cells. -BEES4U


Just to be clear here, amitraz is not a pyrethroid. Amitraz is an amidine, a derivative of an oxoacid. Both Apistan and Bayvarol contain synthetic pyrethroids. Resistance to synthetic pyrethroids will not necessarily provide cross resistance to amidines.


----------



## BEES4U

Bump


----------



## frazzledfozzle

well since you bumped it ... It's not 3 years yet but we have Apivar in our hives and the bees are fit and healthy with hardly a varroa mite in sight 

I love my Apivar


----------



## sqkcrk

Anybody read the CAP article in this month's Bee Culture?


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper

The original strips were pulled by the manufacturer because some lots were expired and still used by beekeepers. When they get too old, or possibly overheated, they turn yellow and oily. Powdery white strips are safe. Some dishonest beekeepers put them in hives after the recall looking for a payout. Amitraz strips are 3.3 percent.


----------



## sqkcrk

What I had heard ages ago was that the manufacturer stopped making the strips because beekeepers sued them over dead colonies. Now I read in Bee Culture's CAP Article that the permit ran out and there wasn't enough revenue to make production worthwhile.


----------



## mac

Well guess what kids. Was at a bee seminar last Sat. And a local equipment distributer said a new formula of Amitraz will be on the market this year 2013 getting a section 18 exemption here in Fl. Info was corroborated by 3 Fl bee inspectors then we will have Monsatto’s remembee out soon Oh boy can’t wait. Toxic soup


----------



## sqkcrk

Don't like it, don't use it. You probably don't need to. Go in bees.


----------



## mac

I'm not going to use it.


----------



## BEES4U

frazzledfozzle said:


> Well Ted I will let you know next year if all our bees die as that will be our third year treating with Apivar.


FYI: This URL is worth reading and its well documented.
http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/personnel/documents/Berry109.pdf

Amitraz degrades rapidly because of exposure
to sunlight (UV), low pH, metabolism by bacteria and
solution properties. Degradation usually occurs within
two to three weeks, and is not very stable in honey, which
is good news. The bad news is the break down products
or metabolites which form are 2, 4-dimethylaniline (2, 4-
DMA) and 2, 4- dimethyl phenyl formamide (2, 4-DMPF).
These products are apparently more environmentally
stable, plus the 2, 4-DMA has mutagenic (causes changes
to DNA), oncogenic (malignant transformation – tumors)
and genotoxic properties (genetic mutations) (Osano
et al., 2002). Of course this is dependent on the levels
present.
Because of mounting complaints from beekeepers
about problems with queens (increasing supersedure
rates, and colonies unable to re-queen themselves) researchers
began investigating the sub-lethal effects of
coumaphos and fl uvalinate on queens and drones.
In 1999, Rinderer’s group investigated the effect of
Apistan™ on drones. Their fi ndings showed a 9.4% reduction
of drone survival in colonies treated with Apistan™.
Other negative effects were observed as well: lower
weights, mucus gland and seminal vesicle weights and
the number of spermatozoa (Rinderer et al. 1999).
In 2002 a group of researches from across the U.S.
examined the effects of queens reared in wax exposed to
varying concentrations of fl uvalinate and coumaphos.
Queens weighed signifi cantly less when exposed to high
doses of fl uvalinate than those reared in lower concentrations
or controls. Even though these concentrations
were higher than doses beekeepers would apply, the
misuse or accumulation of fl uvalinate in wax could lead
to these higher concentrations within colonies. They also
examined other effects of coumaphos and found that
during queen development, body and ovary weight were
both lower. Also, when one coumaphos strip was placed
into colonies with developing queens, they suffered high
mortality along with physical abnormalities and atypical
behavior. Both of these fi ndings conclude that when
A comb drawn out from the plastic strip.
January 2009 BEE CULTURE 35
fl uvalinate or coumaphos are applied during queen development
there is a signifi cant negative impact on the
queen’s health (Haarmann et al. 2002).
Two years later the effects of coumaphos on queen
rearing was again examined. Known concentrations of
coumaphos were applied to queen cups in which queen
larvae were being reared. Queens exposed to 100 mg/kg
of coumaphos (which, by the way, is the U.S. tolerance
level allowed in beeswax) were rejected by colonies 50%
of the time. If that exposure was increased 10 fold to
1000 mg/kg there was complete rejection (Pettis et al.
2004). There are two trains of thought here as to how
the coumaphos may affect the queens. One the miticides
are being passed around the colony from bee to bee and
from bee to the nurse bees which are attending the developing
larvae. The toxin is making direct contact with
the developing queen. The bees detect this and therefore
reject the cell or emerging virgin. The second thought is


----------



## frazzledfozzle

BEES4U most of the above quoted article has nothing to do with Apivar it's all about Apistan and Coumaphos I dont see the relavance?

Apivar has been used in beehives in some countries of Europe for years with no ill effect It's only when dumb arse beekeepers started making up their own concoctions using Tactic that there was problems... Think about it, making up a homebrew with a chemical used for treating a different animal and throwing it in a beehive then turning around a few years later and saying it's killing my bees? 

How smart is that?


----------



## BEES4U

frazzledfozzle said:


> BEES4U most of the above quoted article has nothing to do with Apivar it's all about Apistan and Coumaphos I dont see the relavance?
> 
> Apivar has been used in beehives in some countries of Europe for years with no ill effect It's only when dumb arse beekeepers started making up their own concoctions using Tactic that there was problems... Think about it, making up a homebrew with a chemical used for treating a different animal and throwing it in a beehive then turning around a few years later and saying it's killing my bees?
> 
> How smart is that?


This data might make you a little nervous.
Journal of Apicultural Research	
Vol.44 (3) pp. 124 - 125
DOI	10.3896/IBRA.1.44.3.07
Date	September 2005
Article Title	Resistance to amitraz and flumethrin in Varroa destructor populations from Veracruz, Mexico
Author(s)	Sóstenes R Rodríguez-Dehaibes, Gabriel Otero-Colina, Violeta Pardio Sedas and Juan A Villanueva Jiménez 
Abstract	Dose response curves were determined for amitraz and flumethrin for Varroa destructor collected near Veracruz city, Mexico. Both pesticides were sprayed at known concentrations on female mites using a Burgerjon’s tower. Probit analysis was performed to calculate mean lethal concentrations (LC50). We estimated the LC50 for amitraz to be 0.526 mg/litre; this estimate is 2.3-times higher than the LC50 baseline established nine years earlier in Mexico. The LC50 for flumethrin was estimated as 0.286 mg/litre, 327-times higher than the LC50 baseline, suggesting the development of resistance.
Keywords	Varroa destructor, Mexico 
Download


----------



## camero7

Which is exactly that one should use 2 different treatments in spring and fall, should slow resistance considerably.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

BEES4U

Nope that data dosn't make me nervous at all


----------



## BEES4U

Here's a good data report:

A Review of Treatment Options for Control of Varroa Mite in New Zealand

PDF version (151 KB)http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests-diseases/animals/varroa/paper/varroa-treatment-options.htm

Trade Name(s): Apivar

Active Ingredient: Amitraz (500mg/strip)

Chemical Class: Amadine

Method of Application: Apivar consists of a plastic polymer embedded with amitraz, a contact miticide. The strips should be placed in the hive with one strip used for every 5 frames of bees in each brood chamber. The strip is hung between the frames, with the frames separated slightly so that both sides of the strip come into contact with the bees. The bees rub against the strips as they move through the brood chamber, and then pass the chemical on to other bees as they rub up against each other in the hive. The strips should be removed after 6 weeks.

Amitraz has also been used for varroa control in the past applied as a spray (Mitac), and as a fumigant impregnated on potassium nitrate soaked filter paper and ignited on the bottom board (Taktik).

Effectiveness: Amitraz was one of the earliest chemicals tested for varroa control, with studies dating back to 1979. Early studies are reviewed by Merrington106. More recently, amitraz in plastic strips has been shown to produce varroa mortality of 97-99%6. Amitraz sprayed once and twice killed 90 and 96% of mites respectively 93. Various concentrations of amitraz killed over 98% of mites, and fumigation strips killed over 99% of mites60.

Adverse Effects: A preparation of amitraz (Apivarol) was found to increase mortality of 1-3 day old larvae (61% vrs. 83% for control)4. A fumigation strip of amitraz caused some bees to leave their hive and form clusters98. Fumigation strips also caused high adult bee mortality in package bees60.

Operator Safety: Amitraz is classified by the EPA in the US as Class III – Slightly Toxic. There are unlikely to be operator safety issues for amitraz in the plastic strip form.

LD50: Rats – 523-800mg/kg (oral); >1600mg/kg (dermal)

Residues: Amitraz is a fat-soluble compound, but unlike other such compounds used as varroacides, it is volatile and unstable in honey, degrading in 3-4 weeks76. Amitraz has therefore not been found as a residue in honey95. Beeswax appears to accelerate the degradation of amitraz, with the product not being detectable within hours of application140. Amitraz was not detectable when added at 100ppm in beeswax foundation, although fluvalinate and coumaphos were present in levels similar to the amount added51.

MRL’s: Official maximum residue levels for amitraz in honey range from 0.01ppm in Italy, Germany and Switzerland to 1ppm in the US. The EU level is 0.2ppm140. No MRL has been established for amitraz in beeswax, since the substance has never been found as a residue in beeswax.

Resistance: Amitraz was found to be ineffective in killing mites in the former Yugoslavia, even though the product provided good mite control in the 4 previous years. The mites were believed to be resistant to amitraz34. Amitraz resistance was also confirmed in a population of mites in the US that showed resistance to fluvalinate38. Amitraz resistance has been shown in laboratory assays108

Cost: Between NZ$8.10 and NZ$14.95 per treatment, based on French prices (assuming 10 frames of brood, and therefore 2 strips per hive). According to the manufacturer, the low end price may be influenced by government subsidies.

Labour costs for Apivar are minimal, with two visits per hive 6 weeks apart. One or both visits could be incorporated into normal hive management. Estimated time necessary for application has been determined at 2 minutes per beehive per visit for strip products. Spray application would be 21 minutes per beehive. No figures are given for fumigant products50.

Impediments to Registration: While there is substantial data available on the use of amitraz as both a spray and fumigant, there appears to be far less on the efficacy of strips. Because of good dosage control, however, the strips are likely to provide better efficacy without side effects on bee behaviour and mortality. Apivar is registered for use in Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Belgium and France. There is therefore likely to be sufficient efficacy data available to meet registration requirements in New Zealand should the manufacturer or an importer choose to register the product.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Can you highlight what part of this report concerns you?

I dont see where the problem is ?


----------



## DonShackelford

Glad to see this thread resurrected.
I've recently been emailing larger outfits looking for 50-100 hives. When inquiring about mite control used, the name Taktic is referred to. When asked how it was used, I get no reply. I search here only to find Barry has deleted specific use messages as "off-label".

So am I to assume Taktic is a well kept secret only used by large outfits? If it is keeping them in business, can it really be so bad? I see other treatments as too expensive or time consuming to be practical for operations over 50 hives. With no clear and proven method to eradicate mites, does it not make sense to mimic the practices of those who are successfully keeping thousands of hives alive over a long period?

Baffled in Indy.


----------



## jim lyon

Well Don, I operate one of those larger outfits and I don't use it. Our primary source of income is honey production and for that reason using any substance that can potentially taint your honey crop should be done with care as irresponsible use of chemicals in bee hives could potentially devastate the image that honey now has in the marketplace. According to much of what I read it does degrade more quickly than other chemicals such as fluvalinate or coumaphous and if applied at the right time and at the right concentration its probably all right but I am only guessing and my fear is that most of the folks that are using it are just guessing as well. How many large operations use it? Frankly I don't know, it's the elephant in the room so to speak. I think the majority of commercial beekeepers are pretty smart folks who see the dangers and proceed with care but I worry about some whose thinking is that if a little of something is good that a lot has got to be better. The good thing, though, is that the large operations inevitably sell to the large packers who, seeing the potential liability, are testing honey much more thoroughly than they once did. Many additionally require producers to sign statements about the origin of their honey. I think the approval of Apivar (Aamitraz is its active ingredient) is probably a good thing in that it is a measured dosage with a label telling how it should be used. I am not sure if I will ever use it, I would want to know a bit more about it and whether residues could be a problem. I firmly believe there is a phenomena in mite treatment where less can be better and I have seen success in recent years doing just that. I'm not trying to get preachy with many of my good friends in the industry who I greatly respect but just trying to remind folks to think twice before they put chemicals in their hives.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes

jim lyon said:


> I think the approval of Apivar (Aamitraz is its active ingredient) is probably a good thing in that it is a measured dosage with a label telling how it should be used. I am not sure if I will ever use it, I would want to know a bit more about it and whether residues could be a problem.


Jim I have no idea if you have found an answer to some of the questions you put in 2012. In 2013 came this report http://projectapism.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Final-Report_Pettis-341.pdf with the purpose of determine the extent to which amitraz and its metabolites move into surplus honey when hives are treated at 1x, 2x, and 10x the label rate in the brood rearing areas of bees hives Apis mellifera.


----------

