# Lithium chloride as miticide



## BernhardHeuvel

A German university accidently found a new miticide: lithium chloride.

Lithium chloride effectly kills the honey bee parasite Varroa destructor by a systemic mode of action

Published in Nature
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-19137-5.pdf


----------



## JWChesnut

Fascinating, thank you for the timely post.


----------



## mike17l

JWChesnut said:


> Fascinating, thank you for the timely post.


Word out of my mouth, Fascinating research!!


----------



## COAL REAPER

and suddenly...everybody forgot about blue shop towels!
thanks Bernhard!


----------



## Cuttingedgelandinc

*Lithium Chloride*

Very Interesting indeed 
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-19137-5.pdf


----------



## Cjj

*Lithium Chloride for Varroa*

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-19137-5.pdf Interesting !!!


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Lithium Chloride for Varroa*

(similar threads merged into one and moved to 'diseases and pests')


----------



## jonsl

*Re: Lithium Chloride for Varroa*

Thanks for sharing. Funny how a certain amount of scientific discovery happens by accident.


----------



## psm1212

*Re: Lithium Chloride for Varroa*

Lithium Chloride. Is that a particularly dangerous compound to be handling?


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper

*Re: Lithium Chloride for Varroa*

EXPOSURE AND TOXICITY: weakness, prostration, vertigo, chromosomal breaks, gaps and satellite associations, anorexia, dry mouth, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, tremor of the hands, faintness of musculature, thirst, leukocytosis, and concentration and memory disturbances (especially with older people), fasciculations, muscle contractions, hyperreflexia and hypertonia, drowsiness, confusion, sometimes epileptiform insults, hypotension, coma, collapse. Independent of the plasma level, changes can occur in the ECG and in the EEC, with symptoms such as polyuria and polydipsia, seldom nephrogenic diabetes insipidus, ulcers of the leg, enhancement of acne and psoriasis, transient hyperglycemia, pruritus, and a metal taste and tinnitus


----------



## Buzz-kill

*Re: Lithium Chloride for Varroa*



psm1212 said:


> Lithium Chloride. Is that a particularly dangerous compound to be handling?


Lithium is used therapeutically for treatment of psychiatric disorders such as bipolar. My mother was on it for years. It is given in very low doses and monitored closely because it is poisonous. Handling it for treatment of bees would not be particular dangerous unless you drank it or somehow created lots of inhalable dust for some reason. The mechanism of the most efficacious way to apply it to a bee colony hasn't been worked out yet so it isn't clear how a beekeeper would be handling it. It probably would not be dangerous though. But they do need to find a way to treat bees so that it doesn't end up in the honey. To me that would be the big issue.


----------



## JWChesnut

*Re: Lithium Chloride for Varroa*

The authors of the recently published paper filed a patent on the Lithium salt method in 2016. 
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017042240A1?cl=en


----------



## Branman

*Re: Lithium Chloride for Varroa*

That is so cool... Keeping fingers crossed

Noticing Lithium Chloride is relatively cheap to buy online too...


----------



## Kcnc1

*Re: Lithium Chloride for Varroa*

Can someone with a chemistry background solve the following for me ( from the article).

How much lithium chloride to how much sugar water to achieve : single application of only 10 μl of LiCl in a 25 mM solution.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Lithium Chloride for Varroa*

there is very nice converstation going on here yet we have strayed once again from the topic at hand (lithium chloride in this case) to debating the merits or lack thereof of treating vs. not treating for mites.

the discussion is good and it's nice to see it being done with civility and respect but i can see how it might be frustrating to a reader looking to read up on lithium chloride (or any myriad of topics in other threads) and finding the thread derailed by this age old debate.

so for the sake of keeping discussions true to the title and the opening post i am going to start a thread in the main bee forum created for the expressed purpose of debating treating vs. not treating.

let's get back to lithium chloride here please.


----------



## JWChesnut

*Re: Lithium Chloride for Varroa*



Kcnc1 said:


> Can someone with a chemistry background solve the following for me ( from the article).
> 
> How much lithium chloride to how much sugar water to achieve : single application of only 10 μl of LiCl in a 25 mM solution.


Until basic safety is addressed, it would be irresponsible to promote a dosage (which only requires basic high school chemistry). Let the science proceed with safety trials before dosing your hives.


----------



## gww

Sorry for my part in the derail cause I am interested in keeping up with whatever advances or set back are made with the subject matter of the thread.
Cheers
gww


----------



## MichiganMike

It is a lot to read and pretty small print but I tried. As far as I could tell it does not treat the mites in the cells? Is that correct? If so it is still a big step forward.


----------



## JWPalmer

MichiganMike. Correct, it only kills phoretic mites because it works systemically. The bee must ingest the Li for it to work on the mites. Also note that chronic exposure results in bee mortality. The theraputic treatment of 25mM in a single application followed by plain syrup seemed to have no detrimental effects. I wouldn't be rushing out to buy a bag quite yet, but it sure does look promising.


----------



## Jadeguppy

This looks very promising. The bee death was seen in continuous long-term exposure. I'm wondering if they have started running trials on intermittent treatment designed around the mite lifestyle. 2-3 doses, if dosing is not too labor intensive, would be worth it to save hives.


----------



## Cloverdale

*Re: Lithium Chloride for Varroa*

PSM1212 Not in the amount that would be needed, see a Bee-l for more info tha is ACCURATE.


----------



## Cloverdale

gww said:


> Sorry for my part in the derail cause I am interested in keeping up with whatever advances or set back are made with the subject matter of the thread.
> Cheers
> gww



Join Bee-l plenty of discussion on this very topic going on there,


----------



## JTGaraas

Lithium chloride or lithium citrate provide reason for cautious optimism. As I read the article, ingesting a sugar solution with very small quantities of the lithium chloride makes the consuming bee “poisonous” (my word, not said in article) to the varroa mite. The “treatment” would involve feeding medicated sugar solution to all of the bees under artificial swarm conditions (no stored honey for an alternate source of food) - the bees must become “poisonous” by ingesting the medicine. That said, the article says tThis article has reference to “caged bees”, “artificial swarms”, and possibly “packages”. I do not believe the article’s testing results involved any “cell” testing of larvae or pupae. Lots of testing will need to be done to make sure there is no adverse impact to the host bees, and millions of honey consumers!


----------



## gww

Cloverdale
Is Bee-I bee informed? Or, since I am a dummy, could you post a link.
Thanks
gww


----------



## MichiganMike

Delete, I mis spoke.


----------



## squarepeg

gww said:


> Is Bee-I bee informed?


here you go gww:

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1801&L=BEE-L&D=0&P=104099

click 'next' on 'by topic' to follow the posts.


----------



## gww

Thank you squarepeg.
gww


----------



## rwurster

The prospect of being able to target mites in the cells as opposed to just being able to target the phoretic mites would be a great accomplishment. And if the Li doesnt show up in honey / wax / propolis that would be another great aspect. It still sounds way too early for these potential issues to be addressed much less being properly flushed out and used by the masses. It sounds promising though, I'll give it that. The work on what the mite is actually feeding from within the honeybee is what I found most interesting.


----------



## whiskers

For those who have been out of chemistry class for as long as I have-
A mole is the molecular weight expressed as grams.
A molar solution is a mole dissolved in a litre of solution.
The unit mM stands for milli mol or a thousandth of molar concentration.
The molecular weight of lithium chloride is 42.39. Lithium is 6.94 plus chlorine 35.45. Thus a mole of LiCl is 42.49 grams and a milli mole is .04239 grams or 42.39 mg. That in a litre of water would be 1mM solution. 173.56mg in a litre would be 4mM, and 1084.75mg or a bit more than a gram in a litre would be 25 mM solution.

Were it I, the next experiment I would like to see would investigate use of lithium as a component of winter feed. If it works one could expect to start the year with practically zero mites. Could be great starter feed for a package too.

Bill


----------



## Branman

Yeah, whiskers, I could see it being in the tin in the packages even.


----------



## JTGaraas

My wife tells me the symbol in the formula stands for microliter which is considerably smaller quantity than a milliliter. Your formula may be correct, but one conversion table indicates 10 microliters equals 0.01 milliliters. The conversion table also indicated 10 microliters was the same as 0.00003381 fluid ounce — a really small quantity. I know nothing about chemistry, but something seems wrong with the numbers. Let the scientists do the formulations; I do not believe anyone should trust these numbers from anonymous people.


----------



## Kcnc1

Whiskers, thank you for the answer. And explanation I have been out of high school for many years and my chemistry class was never “basic” to me. That’s what I like about this site. We can all contribute some and get answers in areas we lack. ( and some people can get on their soapbox)


----------



## Spur9

Did a search for Lithium Chloride and Bees. Interesting that over 100 years ago, someone was feeding it to their bees in an experiment. Don't think it was for mites though.

https://books.google.com/books?id=O...MAM#v=onepage&q=lithium chloride bees&f=false


----------



## Ti123

*Re: Lithium Chloride for Varroa*

I too would like to know how much to add to syrup by volume of syrup so that I can do my own "scientific" trial. It's been a while since chemistry and I'm not sure this is correct.

25mM = .025Molar
Molar mass of LiCl =42.4g/mol
C=n/V, concentration or mol/L

So if I had 11grams of LiCl it would equate to 0.2594339623mol=
11g/(42.4g/mol)

Divide that by .025M and I got 10.377Liters

So I would add 11grams of LiCl to 10.377L of syrup and it should be of a concentration of 25mM.


----------



## Ti123

The study speaks in terms of molarity. M and mM are symbols of molarity.


----------



## whiskers

JTGaraas- usually lower case m indicates milli or thousandths, lower case Greek letter mu (looks like a u with a tail off the front) indicates millionths.

Ti123- We agree, just different size batch.

Bill


----------



## JTGaraas

Whiskers - Thanks for the explanation; I confused the inquiry in post #14 on this thread as being the chemistry formula for the desired lithium solution. I now understand the inquiry of post #14 includes a numerical component associated with the amount of lithium chloride within an individual bee that is capable of accomplishing a kill of the varroa mite. Post #14 was not the formula, but rather the goal sought for killing success. Hopefully science will lead beekeepers to the proper solution instead of a “bunch of hunches”, and a lot of dead bees.


----------



## Cloverdale

gww said:


> Cloverdale
> Is Bee-I bee informed? Or, since I am a dummy, could you post a link.
> Thanks
> gww


Did you join Bee-l? They have talked about this extensively. I haven’t heard Randy O. chime in about it yet but I figure he’s doing the almonds now.


----------



## gww

Cloverdale
I did not join bee-l but did follow the link that squarepeg provided and put my mouse over each comment so far so I could see what was written on this subject so far. I saw a few familure faces and a few I did not know. 
Cheers
gww
ps It looks like randy has chimed in now.


----------



## markmaster

JTGaraas: I believe that you are spot on with your comment. Until more extensive field testing is done, especially on the impact to larvae and pupae development, transmission of the lithium chloride to honey, etc., I would be cautious - optimistic, but cautious - about rushing to become a home-chemist and brewing up a potion for my hives. Oxalic acid treatment is effective for the time being, which should allow a window of time for further testing. Side note: I wonder if Jerry Hayes has been working on this? I need to check that out later today.


----------



## Beebeard

Order some chemicals online, scratch some numbers out from a few other online sources, borrow the wife's measuring spoon again. Eyeball some powder into syrup, mix it with your finger, feed the bees. Great, no more mites! Oh crap, that hive died, and it looks like it got robbed out. Oh well. 

Meanwhile, the beekeeper down the street starts harvesting his honey that seems to have some extra zing to it.

Please don't. Not yet. We have plenty of good treatments to get you through till its been tried in more controlled environs.


----------



## DavidZ

hnestly that study straight up negates itself with way to many might maybe possibly used in the wording

there are no clear repeatable effects to be shown.

I wouldn't hold my breath hoping here.

lithium is bad stuff not to be played with by the untrained

more hooey again.


----------



## GoodyFarms

Given that lithium's therapeutic effect is at a fairly low dosage (tens to hundreds of mg), even if it's completely "safe" for the bees it will be difficult to approve. The dosage the paper mentions is 25 mmol or ~1060 ppm. Since they fed it as a sugar solution, once stored/concentrated by the bees said sugar-honey will likely be 2-4x higher concentration of lithium. This could prove to be a problem since bees are known to move around honey. On a positive note it shouldn't bioaccumulate in the wax so, like oxalic/formic, once used it's not going to build up in the hive like some of the hydrophobic miticides do. 

Hopefully though it will give researchers more tools to work with and understand the mechanistic mode of action. Lithium ions are well known to be quite toxic to aquatic invertebrates (~1ppm for daphnia) so I suspect there is likely a lot of info out there that could be used to derive a method of action.


----------



## BDT123

Beebeard, you totally nailed it! Thank you.
Please don't use this, folks. Way too many unknowns and possible harmful effects not clearly understood or tested.
Lets wait and see what future tests and studies reveal.
Brian


----------



## JoshuaW

Even if you buy the .18 per gram bottle of LiCl, an OAV treatment is still way cheaper and safer on the bees, brood and queen.

No LiCl for me until much more extensive research is being done, and even then it might be a hard sell to me because if customers caught on that I'm feeding lithium to my bees, what's in the honey?? (from their perspective)


----------



## Qvox

Cheap, effective, and it doesn't kill bees. ...sign me up. 

Lithium is the active molecule, so lithium citrate, lithium sulphate, lithium acetate, lithium carbonate, and lithium lactate all worked. 25mM or less, higher doses were no more effective. I doubt anyone makes this into a "product", it's not complicated, and the active ingredient can't be patented. So, I wouldn't expect a whole of lot of research to be done on this treatment, beyond what's already available. 

There's enough information here I'd be willing to try it. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-19137-5#Fig3


----------



## JoshuaW

I read the report very thoroughly and even put in my "Beekeeping Techniques Binder". I was in the same boat as Qvox. I even ordered some LiCl but returned it because these are the questions and concerns I have:


Does it harm the brood if nurse bees feed it to the young larvae? 
Does it have any long-lasting effects on the queen (fed RJ)? 
Does it affect sperm viability that is stored in her spermatheca? 
Does it affect developing drones? 
Does it affect sperm maturation/viability of drones?


Most all the tests were done on caged, newly hatched worker bees with no brood, queens, or drones present.
It would still have to be applied during a broodless period if the applicator was trying to feed in conditions as close to the study as possible, and the lab is totally different than the field.
LiCl is still 3 times more expensive than OAV: $.75 for an LiCl treatment vs $.21 for three rounds of oxalic acid.
Also, if the bees are fed for 24 hours, what to do with leftover medicated syrup? Store it in separate containers? Not here. I already have enough to keep track of.
I haven't even mentioned applicator safety: since Lithium is a heavy metal used to regulate mood in depressed/bipolar patients, what about absorption through the skin or inhalation of vapors (if someone were adding it to hot syrup)? (I don't know; I'm just asking questions.) What effect would that have, long-term? I tend to move as quickly as possible through the yard, and I might get careless... 


I'll stick to what is working for me and let the university researchers figure this one out. But if it kills mites under the cappings with no damage to the larvae, queen, drones, or brood, I will consider it.


----------



## Qvox

JoshuaW said:


> <snip>
> 
> I'll stick to what is working for me and let the university researchers figure this one out. *But if it kills mites under the cappings with no damage to the larvae, queen, drones, or brood, I will consider it*.


The way it's delivered (systemically), it's not going to kill mites in capped brood. I could see this as a viable late fall early winter treatment, to break the mite cycle. Perhaps with a late winter follow-up treatment before nectar flow. It appears from the research that less than 25mM concentrations were as effective, they just took longer to kill the mites. Lower, short term exposure (less than 5 days) had no statistically significant effect on bee mortality. Only when they continuously feed it did it effect the bees. 

I'm thinking testing it on one apiary this fall, treat half the hives, and use the other half as the control, to see how it does.


----------



## GoodyFarms

Qvox said:


> The way it's delivered (systemically), it's not going to kill mites in capped brood.


It's possibly that it might have an effect if it's in the royal jelly that's fed to the open brood.

Regarding cost...it's still ridiculously cheap compared to MAQS or Apivar. For the commercial guys, there's no upfront cost for a hugely expensive OAV blower ($4,000). Even if we consider the "cheap" pan type that hobbiests use, the break even point for LiCl vs OAV is 60 hives (presume $100 pan + $20 mask, $0.50 difference in price per 3 treatment cycle). That assumes an equal effectiveness and OAV is definitely not as effective as this study shows LiCl is. 

Not supporting it at all until real research can be done (including the human health risk), but it shouldn't be dismiss it for a $0.50 difference per treatment when most other approved treatments are several times that price.


----------



## jonsl

JoshuaW said:


> I read the report very thoroughly and even put in my "Beekeeping Techniques Binder". I was in the same boat as Qvox. I even ordered some LiCl but returned it because these are the questions and concerns I have:
> 
> 
> Does it harm the brood if nurse bees feed it to the young larvae?
> Does it have any long-lasting effects on the queen (fed RJ)?
> Does it affect sperm viability that is stored in her spermatheca?
> Does it affect developing drones?
> Does it affect sperm maturation/viability of drones?
> 
> 
> Most all the tests were done on caged, newly hatched worker bees with no brood, queens, or drones present.
> It would still have to be applied during a broodless period if the applicator was trying to feed in conditions as close to the study as possible, and the lab is totally different than the field.
> LiCl is still 3 times more expensive than OAV: $.75 for an LiCl treatment vs $.21 for three rounds of oxalic acid.
> Also, if the bees are fed for 24 hours, what to do with leftover medicated syrup? Store it in separate containers? Not here. I already have enough to keep track of.
> I haven't even mentioned applicator safety: since Lithium is a heavy metal used to regulate mood in depressed/bipolar patients, what about absorption through the skin or inhalation of vapors (if someone were adding it to hot syrup)? (I don't know; I'm just asking questions.) What effect would that have, long-term? I tend to move as quickly as possible through the yard, and I might get careless...
> 
> 
> I'll stick to what is working for me and let the university researchers figure this one out. But if it kills mites under the cappings with no damage to the larvae, queen, drones, or brood, I will consider it.


Just an FYI, lithium is not a heavy metal. My concern would be the psychoactive nature of it. Not sure if the government would allow it's use associated with a food substance.


----------



## Qvox

GoodyFarms said:


> It's possibly that it might have an effect if it's in the royal jelly that's fed to the open brood.
> 
> Regarding cost...it's still ridiculously cheap compared to MAQS or Apivar. For the commercial guys, there's no upfront cost for a hugely expensive OAV blower ($4,000). Even if we consider the "cheap" pan type that hobbiests use, the break even point for LiCl vs OAV is 60 hives (presume $100 pan + $20 mask, $0.50 difference in price per 3 treatment cycle). That assumes an equal effectiveness and OAV is definitely not as effective as this study shows LiCl is.
> 
> Not supporting it at all until real research can be done (including the human health risk), but it shouldn't be dismiss it for a $0.50 difference per treatment when most other approved treatments are several times that price.


I'm not sure that there is anything to be concerned about with lithium at these concentration levels. Of course timing, like with all treatments, would be important, to produce a pure product. But I don't think people should be concerned about lithium, if it is effective. 

It should be interesting to note that lithium is promoted by those who are into nootropics. Several research papers have been written on it's ability to promote neurogenesis in the human brain, and it's possible use in reversing certain neurodegenerative diseases. Of all the crap used in agriculture, the use of lithium in small concentrations, for a limited period of time should be the least of our concerns.


----------



## JoshuaW

GoodyFarms said:


> It's possibly that it might have an effect if it's in the royal jelly that's fed to the open brood.


That's one effect I would like to know from funded researchers.



> Regarding cost...it's still ridiculously cheap compared to MAQS or Apivar.


I only compared it to the oxalic acid cost sans vaporizer since that's a one-time shot that should last most of our beekeeping careers.



> That assumes an equal effectiveness and OAV is definitely not as effective as this study shows LiCl is.


only a 4% difference if you assume oav is 96% and licl is 100%. but that efficacy test was done on caged bees with no brood, drones, or queen present.



> For the commercial guys, there's no upfront cost for a hugely expensive OAV blower ($4,000).


but i'd bet the commercial guys take that cost into account when they make the investment in the equipment.



> Even if we consider the "cheap" pan type that hobbiests use, the break even point for LiCl vs OAV is 60 hives (presume $100 pan + $20 mask, $0.50 difference in price per 3 treatment cycle).


what about accounting for storage containers for unused medicated syrup, storage space for those containers, possible disposal of unused syrup, etc?



> Not supporting it at all until real research can be done (including the human health risk)


me neither



> but it shouldn't be dismiss it for a $0.50 difference per treatment when most other approved treatments are several times that price.


i'm not dismissing it; I just want some more research done before I commit. Can any of us that use OAV claim that that is an approved treatment?? Dribble is, but vapor??


----------



## MichiganMike

I see no harm in trying this treatment on one of my colonies as a trial. Can someone convert the minimum required measurements into grams and gallons? I would not take honey or move brood from the colony but I would feed while brood is present. In fact through a whole brood cycle. I really do not care about cost. And if no honey or brood is removed what possible harm can come to humans?


----------



## whiskers

A gram in a litre of syrup would be close enough. See post 29 and post 34.
Bill


----------



## greengage

Rusty from Honey bee suite had a interesting reply.
https://honeybeesuite.com/treat-your-bees-but-hold-the-lithium/


----------



## Branman

I am just face-palming over and over. We can't stop anybody from throwing anything in their own hives, but man, let's give it some scientific tests before we start throwing Lithium in our hives. Robbing, or any number of things could happen which could spread it around. Who knows? Answer is nobody. Just my two cents.


----------



## Michael Bush

My biggest concern is the people who eat my honey. Lithium is a very active chemical. You are feeding it in syrup. It will end up in the honey at some level. What effect will it have on the humans?


----------



## Qvox

Since lithium is the active ingredient, I wonder if Lithium Oxalate would work.

Lithium oxalate is a strong dicarboxylic acid occurring in many plants and vegetables. It is produced in the human body by metabolism of glyoxylic acid or ascorbic acid. In humans it is not metabolized but excreted in the urine.


----------



## 1102009

greengage said:


> Rusty from Honey bee suite had a interesting reply.
> https://honeybeesuite.com/treat-your-bees-but-hold-the-lithium/


Chatted with Erik Österlund about the article, that´s what he said:


> Lithium is used in psychiatry, which also some comments have included in their comments. It’s a mood stabilizer used mostly in bipolar disease treatment, with a lot of undesired side effects that can occur. And the salt is water soluble, that is honey soluble. Don’t understand why the article on the paper is so positive as if it was kind of a silver bullet.
> 
> Erik


Nice to have the honey. Makes us all more stable, perhaps?


----------



## Qvox

People are reacting to the word lithium, like they do the word nuclear, or radiation. It's really not that scary folks. Lithium oxalate is found in certain plants, and people actually take lithium orotate as a supplement to improve cognition, induce neurogenesis, and prevent age related dementia.


----------



## Branman

I think you are opening yourself up to a whole boatload of liability. I would happily disclose any treatments I use to customers. Until more studies are done, I would rather mainline Chinese honey than eat someone's honey that used Lithium. And I think it is borderline criminal to use a potentially psychiatric/mood-altering substance in a hive and not disclose it.


----------



## Qvox

Lithium is sold over the counter, as a supplement to improve cognition, prevent dementia, and increase neurogenesis. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_1?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A3760901%2Cn%3A3773931%2Ck%3ALithium&keywords=Lithium&ie=UTF8&qid=1516814828&rnid=3760931

This is dangerous stuff. Who knows what will happen. It might produce a mutated "super race" of intelligent bees. ...the next thing you know, they'll be building nuclear weapons.


----------



## 1102009

Qvox said:


> Lithium is sold over the counter, as a supplement to improve cognition, prevent dementia, and increase neurogenesis. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_1?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A3760901%2Cn%3A3773931%2Ck%3ALithium&keywords=Lithium&ie=UTF8&qid=1516814828&rnid=3760931
> 
> This is dangerous stuff. Who knows what will happen. It might produce a mutated "super race" of intelligent bees. ...the next thing you know, they'll be building nuclear weapons.


I don´t think we need to be cynical about this.
It will be a setback to resistant bee breeding. If future provides more pests we need to have bees resistant to varroa destructor....


----------



## Qvox

SiWolKe said:


> I don´t think we need to be cynical about this.
> It will be a setback to resistant bee breeding. If future provides more pests we need to have bees resistant to varroa destructor....


I'm not being cynical. I'm being sarcastic.

I'm not optimistic that this new treatment (or any treatment) will eradicate varroa, so the income of people who benefit from raising or promoting hygienic queens, and the manufacture of other chemical treatments, will be safe. But your comment does bring up an interesting point.

If we did stumble upon something that is cheap, safe, and 100% effective, the change to the industry would be dramatic. I could see why some commercial interests might not want a safe, cheap, and effective treatment coming to market. (That last part was cynical)


----------



## Branman

SiWolKe said:


> I don´t think we need to be cynical about this.
> It will be a setback to resistant bee breeding. If future provides more pests we need to have bees resistant to varroa destructor....


it's reductio ad absurdum and a lousy and pointless argument. Edit, I should clarify...not your argument, Qvox's.

And Qvox, if you disclose that you use it to the customer, feel free to put any over the counter drug you want in your hive. My only wonder is if it's a felony or a misdemeanor.


----------



## Qvox

Branman said:


> it's reductio ad absurdum and a lousy and pointless argument. Edit, I should clarify...not your argument, Qvox's.
> 
> And Qvox,* if you disclose that you use it to the customer, feel free to put any over the counter drug you want in your hive. My only wonder is if it's a felony or a misdemeanor.*


Reductio ad Absurdum, with a little self righteous indignation sprinkled on top.


----------



## Virgil

Qvox said:


> If we did stumble upon something that is cheap, safe, and 100% effective, the change to the industry would be dramatic. I could see why some commercial interests might not want a safe, cheap, and effective treatment coming to market. (That last part was cynical)


The market opportunity for a mechanism to eradicate/control invasive species simply dwarfs any beekeeping commercial interests. This is why so much cash is being pumped into solving the dsRNA delivery problem. To put it in context the emerald ash borer is calculated to have cost the US forestry industry $10bn.


----------



## radallo

My two cents on this discussion. The hype about the news is too much. Some preliminar studies under lab conditions, on adult bees, are not enough to try to apply this drug on your own bees. Beeks need to wait few more years to know if this "silver bullet" is on target. Or they need to wait the release of another bullet (dsRNA??). In the meanwhile, the correct use of OA, FA, chemicals (where still working), IPM tecniques, are more than enough to cope with the mites. No shortcut, sorry.
This is my idea,

Additionally some quotes from the authors 

"LiCl (and other Li salts) are a very interesting class of compounds with a fascinating efficacy against Varroa mites and an obvious completely new mode of action. That is fine, but at the moment this is still Science."

"We underestimated the power of social media, resulting in crazy activities of beekeeper from South Africa till Canada."

"For a new veterinary product there are 4 steps required:
1. An idea or hint to test something or a general screening
2. Test of general properties of a new compund (efficacy, side effects etc.)
3. Making a product (i.e. how to apply, how often etc.)
4. Registration

We have more or less finished the second point."

"We added a respective comment to our press release!"


----------



## radallo

DELETED, double post


----------



## radallo

MichiganMike said:


> It is a lot to read and pretty small print but I tried. As far as I could tell it does not treat the mites in the cells? Is that correct? If so it is still a big step forward.


Correct. They are still working with adult bees in lab.cages


----------



## radallo

Quote, +1


----------



## radallo

Spur9 said:


> Did a search for Lithium Chloride and Bees. Interesting that over 100 years ago, someone was feeding it to their bees in an experiment. Don't think it was for mites though.
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=O...MAM#v=onepage&q=lithium chloride bees&f=false


Interesting. If I understood correctly, at that time, Lithium was used as "tracker" to see if the sugar feeding ends up in the super.. and they found it!


----------



## MimbresBees

*Re: Lithium Chloride for Varroa*



Kcnc1 said:


> Can someone with a chemistry background solve the following for me ( from the article).
> 
> How much lithium chloride to how much sugar water to achieve : single application of only 10 μl of LiCl in a 25 mM solution.


that's easy

there are 1000 mMol to 1 Mol. 

1 Mol of LiCl is 42.394grams 

and 0.025 is 25mM 

you take .025 times the 1Mol weight of 42.394g and your answer is...

1.0598grams LiCl

don't use this stuff in your hives


----------



## Qvox

radallo said:


> Interesting. If I understood correctly, at that time, Lithium was used as "tracker" to see if the sugar feeding ends up in the super.. and they found it!


The lithium was used in the production of dsRNA's they were testing. It was not used as a "tracker". They also tested Lithium sulphate,	Lithium lactate,	Lithium acetate,	Lithium citrate, which all generated similar results. 100% mite death with concentrations as low as 4mM.

The lower concentration took longer, but the results were the same.


----------



## Virgil

radallo said:


> Interesting. If I understood correctly, at that time, Lithium was used as "tracker" to see if the sugar feeding ends up in the super.. and they found it!


It's used as a medium to hold the RNA treatment. Frankly, the RNA stuff is way more interesting than the lithium gig - it isn't as if we don't have lots of treatment options. RNA could solve lots of invasive species issues. It works but they haven't solved the delivery problem.


----------



## Qvox

Virgil said:


> It's used as a medium to hold the RNA treatment. Frankly, the RNA stuff is way more interesting than the lithium gig - it isn't as if we don't have lots of treatment options. RNA could solve lots of invasive species issues. It works but they haven't solved the delivery problem.


I agree. However, as I understand it, companies like Monsanto are _encoding it into the DNA_ of crops. So that when pests eat it the plant’s self-made DvSnf7 dsRNA disrupts a critical gene and kills the pest. It's a most interesting mode of attack, but very complex, and challenging to develop. I read an article about Monsanto using it in their genetically modified corn to fight western corn rootworm. 

I like the idea of low-tech approach of using lithium as an effective miticide. It seems like a perfect winter treatment, or as someone wrote earlier in this thread, used in packaged bees. They found that mite kills where 100% with as little as one single 24 hour feeding. 

I don't believe it's a "silver bullet" that will eradicate varrora, but it'd be nice to have another effective weapon in the arsenal. They know it works, they know effective doses don't effect bee mortality. So, the next test is to determine it's affect on hive products. I imagine it's something a person wouldn't want to use during a nectar flow. But it would be easy enough to get a lab to tests a hives honey or wax, to determine the levels of lithium present. 

Lithium is already found in certain vegetables that we all eat, and most drinking water. People actually buy and take lithium as a supplement. So, it's not the boogeyman some here make it out to be. But I'm all for testing to make sure hive products aren't adversely affected.


----------



## Brad Bee

I'm all for a new, safe treatment. I do not consider a compound used to treat psychiatric disorders as safe for my consumption.

I'm glad that I don't buy honey from some of you folks. I seriously can't believe that anyone would attempt to try this until enough research is done to PROVE both it's safety and it's efficacy.

If you're bent on trying something that's a guaranteed miticide and not concerned about the potential health risks, spray a gallon of gasoline over the top of your wintering cluster, covering all frames, every nook and cranny. I guarantee you that will kill mite in the hive and in the cells.


----------



## Qvox

Brad Bee said:


> I'm all for a new, safe treatment. I do not consider a compound used to treat psychiatric disorders as safe for my consumption.
> 
> I'm glad that I don't buy honey from some of you folks. I seriously can't believe that anyone would attempt to try this until enough research is done to PROVE both it's safety and it's efficacy.
> 
> If you're bent on trying something that's a guaranteed miticide and not concerned about the potential health risks, spray a gallon of gasoline over the top of your wintering cluster, covering all frames, every nook and cranny. I guarantee you that will kill mite in the hive and in the cells.


I think we understand your position on the subject. But pouring gasoline on a hive kinda sorta defeats the purpose ....doesn't it? You're overreacting. 

You should know, lithium is already in the food you eat, and water you drink. There's actually an RDA for lithium. People take lithium supplements, which you can buy over the counter, to improve cognition, and prevent dementia. It's been shown to induce neurogenesis, actually growing certain brain cells. There are studies which show that states that have higher concentrations of lithium in the water have lower levels of clinical depression, suicide, and violent crimes. Lithium is in nature. 

It's doubtful that one 24 hour exposure in late fall or winter would have any effect on honey production. Unless you're located in place where there is no agriculture, golf courses, or manicured lawns, you're bees are routinely exposed to nastier stuff while foraging their enviornment. 

We already _know_ that an effective treatment concentration has _zero_ effect on bee mortality. So unlike gasoline, it doesn't effect the bees. We're talking about 1/4 teaspoon per liter (1.05g/L) of syrup, which isn't fed during a nectar flow anyway. 

With all that said, no one is suggesting lacing honey with lithium for its potential positive effects. It's a simple enough process to send samples of honey and wax to a lab for testing, ...to make sure.


----------



## radallo

Qvox said:


> radallo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. If I understood correctly, at that time, Lithium was used as "tracker" to see if the sugar feeding ends up in the super.. and they found it!
> 
> 
> 
> The lithium was used in the production of dsRNA's they were testing. It was not used as a "tracker". They also tested Lithium sulphate,	Lithium lactate,	Lithium acetate,	Lithium citrate, which all generated similar results. 100% mite death with concentrations as low as 4mM.
> 
> The lower concentration took longer, but the results were the same.
Click to expand...

I strongly doubt 100 years ago they were looking for RNAtech....


----------



## radallo

Virgil said:


> radallo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. If I understood correctly, at that time, Lithium was used as "tracker" to see if the sugar feeding ends up in the super.. and they found it!
> 
> 
> 
> It's used as a medium to hold the RNA treatment. Frankly, the RNA stuff is way more interesting than the lithium gig - it isn't as if we don't have lots of treatment options. RNA could solve lots of invasive species issues. It works but they haven't solved the delivery problem.
Click to expand...

See my previous post


----------



## Qvox

radallo said:


> I strongly doubt 100 years ago they were looking for RNAtech....


I don't understand. Who said anything about testing 100 years ago?


----------



## radallo

Qvox said:


> radallo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly doubt 100 years ago they were looking for RNAtech....
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand. Who said anything about testing 100 years ago?
Click to expand...


My post was replying to the previous one from "Spur9".. referring to the use of Lithium in beekeeping more than 100ya


----------



## whiskers

Radallo- Good catch, I've been reading through here wondering when someone would notice that that referred to the old study.
Bill


----------



## Eduardo Gomes

Lithium is essential in the human diet and current scientific evidence supports the consumption of 1000 μg / day of lithium for an average adult with 70 kg. The consumption of lithium provides health benefits for the general population.

source: Gerhard N. Schrauzer (2002) Lithium: Occurrence, Dietary Intakes, Nutritional Essentiality, Journal of the American College of Nutrition


----------



## Qvox

Eduardo Gomes said:


> Lithium is essential in the human diet and current scientific evidence supports the consumption of 1000 μg / day of lithium for an average adult with 70 kg. The consumption of lithium provides health benefits for the general population.
> 
> source: Gerhard N. Schrauzer (2002) Lithium: Occurrence, Dietary Intakes, Nutritional Essentiality, Journal of the American College of Nutrition


If people would stop reacting to the word "lithium" and the first Google search entry they come across, do the math on the level to achieve efficacy purported by the study, they'd be very interested in this treatment.

Assuming worse case scenario, a beek gets his bees to eat syrup during nectar flow, the bees metabolize NOTHING, but instead just store the "lithium syrup" full strength (not going to happen), along with their honey crop, the dilution of lithium would be closer to levels close to RDA for lithium than psychoactive levels used in healthcare. It would be much less than what some people take as over-the-counter supplements, sold on Amazon. 

The study purports efficacy at very low concentration levels in simulated swarms. The next test is on a production hive. I doubt the efficacy would be as effective as it is under simulated swarm conditions. But it's worth a look. Don't harvest the honey from tested hives, and pay a lab to test lithium levels in the honey and wax.

Do the math. There is no way possible for concentrations of lithium to be a concern. Not at the concentrations used in the study. You'd have to bypass the bees, and spoon the full liter into the mouth of ONE of your customers, and even then ....maybe.


----------



## Qvox

If you're a hobbyist with a few hives, don't do this. One of the other toxic treatments is good enough. And if you're a no-treat kind of beekeeper, enjoy your dead hives.

But if you're a beekeeper who's interested in your own personal research, and keeping your hives alive, do it. Do it constructively, and responsibility. Design a good test. Make sure you keep good notes. 

People today are way too passive, way too dependent on papa gov. big pharma, or some external authority telling them what to do. This one isn't rocket science, the study was done, see if you can duplicate the results. If you can establish efficacy, then by all means make sure your end product is safe. Pay a lab to test the results. Testing for lithium isn't hard, or expensive. 

If you're not willing to forgo the cost of the last step (testing your product), don't sell your product to the consumer. ...but for the love of god, stop being passive aggressive, stop virtue signaling, no one is keeping bees in the land of unicorns and rainbows, make up your own mind with actual evidence. 

This one is butt simple to replicate. It's not some exotic chemical, crisper, or some complex genetic experiment. It's a simple treatment that can be replicated with the data.

Again, I'm not suggesting this is something for the hobbiest (might be?). Or, that anyone should go gangbusters on all their hives with lithium. But if you have the balls to do a controlled well designed experiment, responsibly and document the results. Go for it! Lithium is cheap and readily accessible. Document, and report your results.

...or you can wait for some commercial interests, to come up with some well researched patented, government regulated, expensive treatment with a cool name.


----------



## radallo

Sorry,

But Qvox recommendations are unacceptable.

Being ACTIVE do not imply being outlaw.
Being outlaw, illegal, is something different.

If you do not like the rules, be active to change the rules.

If you can't wait to use your hives for R&D, do it legally, contacting some research group in you nearby.

Who will set a threshold to define a hobbist or something done "constructively" and "responsably"? Everybody for his own?Lol.


----------



## AstroBee

Maybe we've just discovered why some areas are naturally less prone to have issues with varroa? Maybe it's just the local water source? 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1699579


----------



## squarepeg

randy oliver's comment regarding lithium posted a few days ago:

"It is currently legal to feed colonies a lithium salt as a nutritional supplement, but I cannot recommend putting it into your hives prior to further formal testing."

from: http://scientificbeekeeping.com


----------



## squarepeg

AstroBee said:


> Maybe we've just discovered why some areas are naturally less prone to have issues with varroa? Maybe it's just the local water source?
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1699579


it would be very interesting if a correlation is found.


----------



## gww

Square...


> "It is currently legal to feed colonies a lithium salt as a nutritional supplement, but I cannot recommend putting it into your hives prior to further formal testing."


He also wrote that he had mixed feelings of a patton given on it cause now it could be fed legally as a suppliment but if they label it, it would change that.

I do know that my salt block that I have out for deer gets hit pretty hard when the water is puddled where it sits.
Cheers
gww


----------



## Qvox

radallo said:


> Sorry,
> 
> But Qvox recommendations are unacceptable.
> 
> Being ACTIVE do not imply being outlaw.
> Being outlaw, illegal, is something different.
> 
> If you do not like the rules, be active to change the rules.
> 
> If you can't wait to use your hives for R&D, do it legally, contacting some research group in you nearby.
> 
> Who will set a threshold to define a hobbist or something done "constructively" and "responsably"? Everybody for his own?Lol.


The individual. 

I tend to choose not to concede my inalienable individual rights to _other individuals_. I've personally never found the angels of our better nature worthy enough to delegate my inalienable rights. And I don't ask that others conceded their inalienable rights to me. ...just the way I roll, I'm kind of a radical individualist in that way (I guess my American is showing). 

But allow me to clarify my position, I meant, if you're not committed to a dedicated trial, conducted responsibly, don't do it. _Don't _sell untested hive products to others. _Don't_ assume this is either safe or effective for you to begin using as your primary agent against varroa. Don't risk it on all your colonies. With that said, protocol is fairly simple. There is enough information for a beekeeper to make up their own mind about trying it.

But be aware, the devil is always in the details, and application. There are still a lot of questions that need to be answered on this one. It's not ready for "primetime" ..._just yet_.

The researchers only tested it under _simulated swarm conditions_. Under those conditions feeding for one 24 hour period produced 100% mite kills, with no statistical change in bee mortality. _However, in a working hive, both its efficacy and safety, have *not* been tested or proven_. 

I _suspect_, it will be somewhat less effective than 100%, with such a short treatment exposure (24h), if for no other reason than due to dispersion. Not all the bees would eat it. With that said I hypothesize that there may be a couple of applications where this treatment _*might*_ be very effective. This _*might*_ be a very effective winter treatment. It also *might *be a very effective treatment for bee packages. 

I_ think_ it would be a substantially _less_ effective treatment during the spring and summer, for obvious natural reasons. I also agree with other's concerns about "contaminating" honey, or other hive products. So, I think we need more testing there. I personally would not use any hive products from tested hives until we have more data. _At this point I think it would be unethical to sell such products from treated hives_.

One last thing, there is absolutely no good data on lithium's effect on a production hive, or its queen and brood production. They only did research on simulated swarms. So, one potential risk is that this treatment might have some as of yet unknown negative impact which would render it useless to us. We just don't know. It is still very much in the experimental phase.


----------



## Qvox

gww said:


> Square...
> 
> 
> He also wrote that he had mixed feelings of a patton given on it cause now it could be fed legally as a suppliment but if they label it, it would change that.
> 
> I do know that my salt block that I have out for deer gets hit pretty hard when the water is puddled where it sits.
> Cheers
> gww


I think it's going to be very difficult for any commercial interest to label it. They tested it on various forms of lithium, and it still worked. So it's not just lithium chloride. It's the lithium. That's impossible to patent and control. I suppose they might attempt to use government to regulate its use, but that'll be impossible to enforce. 

They might come up with some novel delivery method, or some unique formula, or product, for commercial sale, which is what it sounds like they're going to try to do now.


----------



## Qvox

*The more I think about treating with elemental lithium, the more questions I have. The researchers achieved efficacy in their lab experiments, simulating swarm like conditions. That's important. Because this fact, fails to answer what effects, if any this treatment would have on a hive colony.*

The number one question I have; would the efficacy hold? Would feeding an active colony, of many more members, under hive conditions, still produce their impressive results (100% mite kills)? It might not. _Why not?_ Because of uneven dispersion. Not all bees would eat the treated syrup. So I surmise, 100% mite kills might be more difficult, perhaps <100% at the tested concentrations or durations. This is important, because while at low concentrations and durations, there was no statistical effect on bee mortality, at longer durations _there was_ an adverse effect on bee mortality. It shortened the workers lives. It should also be noted that I can find no information, or data, on what if any effect it had on the queens. The researchers didn't test that. 

Number two; what effect if any, would the treatment have on long-term, normal hive function? _How would it affect a laying queen?_ How might it affect brood production and development? What about sexual reproduction, would it affect the drones, or a virgin queen? Elemental lithium can adversely affect the prenatal health, and development of higher mammals. It can also adversely affect sexual reproduction. Could exposing a hive subject the insects to similar adverse health effects? ...we don't know, it has not been tested. The researchers tested none of this. We have no data.

What other effects might it have, that we can't even guess right now?

This protocol is not yet ready for primetime. I know some of my posts in this thread seem to support personal experimentation, but that's what it would be _experimentation_. For all we know, it might destroy a hive. Not to mention the health of the hive products. 

I would not "try" this unless you're willing to approach this as experimentation. I would not "try" this unless you were willing to isolate the treated hives in such a way as to avoid cross-contamination of other untreated colonies, and eliminate drifting, and robbing activity. I would not "try" this experiment unless you are willing to forgo the use of any hive products from the experimental hives. Selling, or giving others, honey from treated hives, at this point, would be irresponsible, and unethical. 

I would not use this as a treatment, it's still very much in the experimentation phase. A lot of questions remain to be answered.


----------



## stuckpipe

So I am wondering, what would happen if I use Lithium hypochlorite instead of calcium hypochlorite in my pool and my bees happen to drink the water?


----------



## MimbresBees

Is anyone here actually trying this? or to scared to let the forum know?

I know of 5 apiaries here in Oregon who have set up experimental outyards to test this hypothesis.

we're all collecting data, and so far it seems to be working.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

What are the mites drops in comparison to normal? 

And is it just me or does this seem like something varroa could adapt to pretty easily?


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

x2


----------



## Qvox

I'm a huge advocate for further research into the efficacy and safety of this treatment in working hives. But there are a lot of questions that need to be addressed in BOTH efficacy and safety. Both to the hive, and humans.

Here's what we know: Lithium Chloride systemically killed varroa destructor, under _very specific experimental conditions_. A short 24 hour exposure to the chemical did not significantly effect bee mortality. ....the bees appeared to remain healthy. However, longer term exposure did shorten bee mortality. So... it's does have a potential negative impact on bee health. 

Hey, it killed the mites! But here is what we don't know:

1) How might this effect brood and larva. 
2) How might this effect the immune system? Could exposure to LC open the door exposing the hive to some other pathogen?
3) Could the use of lithium chloride pose a risk for human consumption? 
4) Would the efficacy hold-up in working hive? 

*We just don't know.
*

So with that said, this is still very much in the experimental stage. I'm all for continued research, even personal research. But at this point a beekeeper would have to be willing to use scientific protocols, and ethically, no hive products from the experimental hives should enter the food supply. That means no honey, no wax, no proposals, no woodware, _absolutely NOTHING_ should be used by humans, or used in other hives where products might be used by humans.

The experimental yard should also be isolated. That means finding a location that the research beekeeper is reasonably sure no other active hive would rob from the experimental hives. That's a tough one. 

So for most beekeepers, I'd wait and allow the research to continue.


----------



## 1102009

https://imker-stierberg.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Infobrief0103-2018Celle.pdf

Quote:
*March 2018*
■ Institute of Apiculture Celle
For the time being, lithium chloride is not an approved varroacide. Those who apply lithium chloride to bees behave irresponsibly, violate the German Medicines Act (AMG) and possibly cause unacceptable residues in honey
Following the euphoric media coverage of initial research on lithium chloride, which has an acaricidal effect on varroa mites, we have been gathering more inquiries from beekeepers and the general public on the topic. There was also one and the other, who asked where you could even buy the new Varroazide. Now we have come to know that there already are beekeepers who want to treat their colonies with lithium chloride against the Varroa mite.
We take this as an opportunity to enlighten you in this.
■ The active substance lithium chloride has a pharmacological action against the Varroa mite and rather does not harm the adult bees. Lithium chloride, however, is extremely toxic even in the smallest amounts for the brood of honeybees
Lithium chloride gives the investigations of Ziegelmann and her colleagues1 a very good acaricidal action against the Varroa mite. The use in adult bees in small laboratory cage experiments and with swarming artificially did not show any noticeable negative effects on the adult bees. On the other hand, it has a very good activity against the Varroa mites. The authors of the study just published point out that the results are only to be understood as a first step towards the development of a new veterinary medicinal product. Accordingly,* there are still no* *studies on possible sublethal effects, on possible side effects on adult bees and on bee brood, according to the authors.* Likewise, there are investigations into possible residues in the bee products. However, the patent application from 2016 (WO 2017042240 A1) 2 of Sitools Biotech GmbH and the University of Hohenheim *already shows that the lithium chloride has a lethal effect on larval stages of the honeybee under laboratory conditions. **This toxic and therefore lethal effect on bee brood even occurs at lowest lithium chloride concentrations in the feed.*


----------



## Cloverdale

What Qvox and Siwolke said; do not mess around with this stuff. There was quite a discussion on Bee-l a while back on this subject. It was mentioned jokingly that someone will probably be stupid enough to try it.


----------



## RedAceBees

Call me irresponsible, but I had a PHD chemist do the math so I could start my own trial. A large beekeeper I work with has set aside a number of hives to test LiCl. Results are forthcoming, but here's the math:

mM, in the Nature article is millimolar, the moles of a solute in a liter of solution. LiCl is 42.394 grams/mole. At 3.785 liters per gallon, you need 4.01 grams of LiCl in a gallon of syrup to achieve the 25 Mm solution used in the Nature article. This was the MAXIMUM amount of LiCl in solution tested by the scientists. According to the article, both 2Mm (.32g/gal) and 10Mm (1.6g/Gal) solutions proved effective, but over a longer time frame. 

While LiCl has the aforementioned toxic effects after ingestion (in tests, 4 doses of 2g each caused toxic effects) it is also reported to be not absorbed through the skin.
https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb%3A%40term+%40DOCNO+4281

The water soluble nature of LiCl is promising, since it won't store in wax, but as it is a systemic method of treatment fed in syrup, it is very inadvisable to feed it to bees that are making honey for human consumption. I prefer to always keep any chemical or medication out of my hives when honey supers are on, but this is perhaps even more important since bees could store the LiCl solution directly as honey. 

Lab grade LiCl is readily available online but carries the disclaimer that it is not for food, drug or household use. Use it at your own risk.


----------



## Qvox

RedAceBees said:


> Call me irresponsible, but I had a PHD chemist do the math so I could start my own trial. A large beekeeper I work with has set aside a number of hives to test LiCl. Results are forthcoming, but here's the math:
> 
> mM, in the Nature article is millimolar, the moles of a solute in a liter of solution. LiCl is 42.394 grams/mole. At 3.785 liters per gallon, you need 4.01 grams of LiCl in a gallon of syrup to achieve the 25 Mm solution used in the Nature article. This was the MAXIMUM amount of LiCl in solution tested by the scientists. According to the article, both 2Mm (.32g/gal) and 10Mm (1.6g/Gal) solutions proved effective, but over a longer time frame.
> 
> While LiCl has the aforementioned toxic effects after ingestion (in tests, 4 doses of 2g each caused toxic effects) it is also reported to be not absorbed through the skin.
> https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb%3A%40term+%40DOCNO+4281
> 
> The water soluble nature of LiCl is promising, since it won't store in wax, but as it is a systemic method of treatment fed in syrup, it is very inadvisable to feed it to bees that are making honey for human consumption. I prefer to always keep any chemical or medication out of my hives when honey supers are on, but this is perhaps even more important since bees could store the LiCl solution directly as honey.
> 
> Lab grade LiCl is readily available online but carries the disclaimer that it is not for food, drug or household use. Use it at your own risk.


It's been several months since I read the study, but if memory serves, they only tested it on simulated swarms. Not in a working hive. I seem to recall someone saying it harmed brood production. When it first come out I entertained the idea of running an experiment, but after reading the published work decided against it. There are just too many unknowns right now. OAV is effective, safe, and proven method for controlling varroa destructor. 

If you're going to run this experiment I'd make absolutely sure the experimental hives were isolated, I wouldn't want to risk contamination of honey bound for human consumption. So your experimental apiary has to be very isolated, you have to make sure robbing isn't going to contaminate someone else's honey. I think it would be completely irresponsible to use any hive products from the experimental hives. Honestly if your doing this for science the wax, honey and proplus should all be sent to a lab for testing. You can't risk hurting someone. 

You need to be extremely careful.


----------



## Qvox

If people really want to conduct scientific experiments, using their bees and equipment, they should probably reach out to a state or local university, and offer to fund the experiment. I'm sure there are many graduate students and doctoral students that might benefit from such research. They'll design the experiment, monitor it, and publish their work. 

It's worth a shot.


----------



## IsaacJohnson

Very true!


----------



## AHudd

While reading the last few posts of this thread "The Stand" by Steven King popped into my head.

Alex


----------



## RedAceBees

After my last post, I received this kind and encouraging private message from a Dick Cryberg in Ohio:


Richard Cryberg said:


> I personally hope EPA puts you in jail for ten years for breaking all kinds of laws. You are a criminal if you do the tests you propose and as a criminal should be punished enough to prevent you from doing further harm and creating risk for society. I suggest if you do this unlawful test at minimum you should kill the bees and burn all honey and hive equipment at the conclusion of the test.
> 
> To do this legally you need to get an Experimental Use Permit from the Federal EPA. At minimum that EUP will require you to burn or landfill 100% of any honey stores in the hive at the end of the test. If it is burning you would be required to burn at an incinerator licensed for waste disposal.
> 
> Dick, also a PhD chemist who has a brain unlike the moron you consulted with.


Is Dick just that, or is there a true legal issue here? Has anyone heard of a US lab testing this? I realize that any non-approved treatment is risky, but anecdotal evidence suggests that thousands of gallons of 12% Amitraz are crossing the border into the US and are then used in commercial beehives nationwide in a wholly illegal manner. Organic acids are dangerous to the person applying them as well, and are also deadly to larval bees. The fact of the matter is that we do not have a satisfactorily affordable mite treatment method and the faster we can get answers to the question of whether this treatment is worth pursuing or should go the way of Coumaphos, Fluvalinate and Fumagilin the better our industry will be.


----------



## squarepeg

i'm not an expert on the matter, but here is a comment from randy oliver about it:

"It is currently legal to feed colonies a lithium salt as a nutritional supplement, but I cannot recommend putting it into your hives prior to further formal testing."

from: http://scientificbeekeeping.com


----------



## squarepeg

also worth reading:

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1801&L=BEE-L&D=0&P=104099


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

RedAceBees said:


> ... is there a true legal issue here?


You can not legally "roll your own" pesticides. To be legal, *every* pesticide applied must come out of a container that has an EPA registration number, AND the full manufacturers instructions on the label [which must include dosages for the target pest]. 

That also means that those using "generic" oxalic acid (AKA wood bleach) as a varroa control are in violation of EPA regulations. The only legal use of oxalic acid as a varroacide is when that oxalic acid comes out of a properly EPA registered/labeled package, such as the ones that Brushy Mountain or Dadant sells.

That same principle applies to lithium chloride when used as a pesticide (varroa control). It either needs to be from an EPA registered/labeled container, or you need an EPA experimental permit. They are not impossible to get, for instance, Randy Oliver has an experimental permit for oxalic acid used as a varroa control. (Even though oxalic acid is an approved varroacide, to use it in a manner not on the EPA label requires an experimental permit.)


----------



## Cloverdale

I would heed Dicks words and Randys; this is not something to mess around with. Join Bee-l and look up the discussion regarding this. Many people do not have a bedside manner but get frustrated with amateurs messing around with chemicals like the above.


----------



## snapper1d

Its funny how it used to be sold on the shelves as a salt substitute.


----------



## Cloverdale

“It is used to manufacture mineral waters; in pyrotechnics; soldering aluminum; in refrigerating machines. It is used as a dessicant. HUMAN EXPOSURE AND TOXICITY: Acute poisoning in man reported after 4 doses of 2 g each of lithium chloride, causing weakness, prostration, vertigo, and tinnitus.” Definition online.


----------



## JWPalmer

Cloverdale said:


> Many people do not have a bedside manner but get frustrated with amateurs messing around with chemicals like the above.


When it comes to Dr. Cryberg, I think that is an understatement. However, I find that highly intelligent people tend to be brusque in their speech. That is to say they do not suffer fools gladly. I tend to ignore the manner and focus on the content.


----------



## AHudd

RedAceBees said:


> Call me irresponsible


OK, you're irresponsible.

You're welcome,
Alex


----------



## John Davis

Could have missed it but salt substitute is/was potassium chloride don't remember lithium used that way.


----------



## snapper1d

John Davis said:


> Could have missed it but salt substitute is/was potassium chloride don't remember lithium used that way.


Look under precautions on the wiki link.Potassium chloride is use now instead of lithium chloride.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_chloride#Precautions


----------



## RedAceBees

We have a major disconnect in this country between the educated elite, the so-called "scientific community" who burn billions of dollars in research money in their ivy-covered towers without generating any tangible results, and the on-the-ground workers who are engaged in the actual production of real goods and services. The goal of most research scientists seems to be less an actual useful result, and more the pursuit of publication in order to garner that next taxpayer-funded grant check. This study was only accidentally useful to those of us in the industry. The scientists were trying to use genetic material from mites to somehow make the bees biologically resistant to the mites (GMO bees anyone?) but when the research came up with an actual, useful result, our ivory tower wizards had to quickly regain their place in the hierarchy by cautioning us against using the research for our own purposes. The exception seems to be people like Mr. Oliver who are somehow able to stand in both worlds, without treating those of us in the commercial industry with unveiled disdain.
That being said, the caution of the more tactful of you has not fallen on deaf ears, and rather than experimenting myself I'll be working to provide cull-out equipment stocked with bees so that a team of chemists and biologists can design a suitably safe experiment without danger of cross-contamination to production colonies.


----------



## squarepeg

:thumbsup:


----------



## Cloverdale

JWPalmer said:


> When it comes to Dr. Cryberg, I think that is an understatement. However, I find that highly intelligent people tend to be brusque in their speech. That is to say they do not suffer fools gladly. I tend to ignore the manner and focus on the content.


Me too.


----------



## John Davis

Ah-ha read the link.
I was born in 1950 so did miss use in the 40s as a salt substitute and discontinued due to toxic effects.


----------



## Qvox

RedAceBees said:


> After my last post, I received this kind and encouraging private message from a Dick Cryberg in Ohio:
> 
> 
> Is Dick just that, or is there a true legal issue here? Has anyone heard of a US lab testing this? I realize that any non-approved treatment is risky, but anecdotal evidence suggests that thousands of gallons of 12% Amitraz are crossing the border into the US and are then used in commercial beehives nationwide in a wholly illegal manner. Organic acids are dangerous to the person applying them as well, and are also deadly to larval bees. The fact of the matter is that we do not have a satisfactorily affordable mite treatment method and the faster we can get answers to the question of whether this treatment is worth pursuing or should go the way of Coumaphos, Fluvalinate and Fumagilin the better our industry will be.


I'm not against responsible experimentation. That chastisement offended my libertarian sensibilities. Cryberg hopes you are put in jail for conducting an experiment on your own bees with your own equipment, and money? That's absurd. 

Personally, the only reason I wouldn't do it is because after reading the research paper I realized that there was just too many unanswered questions, and I wasn't willing to do the work. 

Most of what the EPA does is make work for the EPA, to justify it's budget and salary. It also caters to lobbyist that don't like cheap, non-patentable solutions. If this treatment ends up being as good as the initial research suggests it might, then it will change the industry. 

What happens when varroa destructor is eliminated as a threat? Think about it.


----------



## msl

> put in jail for conducting an experiment on your own bees with your own equipment, and money? That's absurd.


Would you feel the same about a farmer 1/4 mile away using experimental insecticides that havent been tested/approved ?

responsible experimentation includes a permit, testing, replicates, and destruction of the "contaminated" honey

I would wager 99%+ of the "experimenters" on BS don't plan on giving up their honey crop


----------



## Qvox

msl said:


> Would you feel the same about a farmer 1/4 mile away using experimental insecticides that havent been tested/approved ?
> 
> responsible experimentation includes a permit, testing, replicates, and destruction of the "contaminated" honey
> 
> I would wager 99%+ of the "experimenters" on BS don't plan on giving up their honey crop


Approved by the FDA? 

lol

They've "approved" a lot of really unhealthy things over their history. You don't have to be a scientist to understand that the concentrations used for this application are fairly small. 

Dilution is your friend. 

With that said, I've already stated my position on this matter. Threatening, or wishing, another human would be kidnapped and locked in a cage for 10 years isn't cool, in my opinion.


----------



## gww

Qvox


> With that said, I've already stated my position on this matter. Threatening, or wishing, another human would be kidnapped and locked in a cage for 10 years isn't cool, in my opinion.


I am with you on this and so are almost everyone else on the thing they are doing and are comfortable with. There are enough rules that everybody has their favorite rule to violate like was mentioned on things like taktic from mexico or wood bleach from home depot. 

Squarepeg listed a quote from randy oliver about the lithium but Randy also made one other point on this subject and that was that he had mixed feelings of this being recognized as a mite treatment cause as it stands now with out that distinction, it could be used as a feed supplement right now and would not violate anything. Now this was not said in a way that everything should be used but more (how I took it) that you sometimes lose good things when the gov gets involved. Now I did not take it that randy thought people should try it with no understanding. It was just a point being made that it would be made different to the gov if used for mite treatment. So just recognizing a fact.

In the end, finding whether safe or not is a complete different thing then whether legal or not.

Many do safe things that are not technically legal and don't feel bad if they do it and some do some things that are legal cause the subject has not been addressed but are still unsafe. 

I Don't have enough info to decide that lithium chloride is safe to use and so I would not sell the honey but if I wanted to see what is did to mites, I might try it out first and if it then seemed worth it, I might go further and get those permits and pay for test. Somebody did that with oxalic acid twenty years before a permit was requested and it became approved and nobody was going to jail.

There are things that are too far and then there are things that end up being common sense. So far oxalic has fell under the common sense. Maybe lithium cloride will also or maybe not but gathering info on it will probably not end you up in jail and I bet some will be experimented with before lots of people go though the trouble to get permits to go further.

It may not be the way it is supposed to work but is probably the way it really works in real life, more times then not.

Of course there are always people that like other people to march to the common drum, Look at Galileo who was put in such a jail till he died cause he thought the earth moved around the sun. I do understand there are many in society that think you should follow the rules and only break the ones they break or at least don't get caught. Of course those other people were not the ones that changed the world. It was the people like galileo that were punished for being wrong but never proved of being wrong that changed the world.

Cheers
gww


----------



## Cloverdale

Qvox said:


> ...
> 
> Personally, the only reason I wouldn't do it is because after reading the research paper I realized that there was just too many unanswered questions...


Which is why Richard Cryberg says what he says.


----------



## gww

Cloverdale


> Which is why Richard Cryberg says what he says.


Though richard has by his own admission in places, experimented with things out side of label approval though I am sure he knew the stuff he was working with and how to control it so that it was a safe experiment. 

Just saying.
gww


----------



## gww

Just for clarification of my last reply to this thread. I based my comment on my take of this comment by Richard on made on beeL and my reading of the label on oxalic.


> A year ago I did experiments where I fogged water solutions of oxalic acid. I did a treatment once a week for several weeks and found mite counts totally unaffected by the treatment. Treated hives had counts by an alcohol wash just as high as the untreated controls.
> 
> I have also done some experiments testing what happens to ethanol when run thru a fogger. Fogger conditions are set up perfectly to cause the water gas reaction. Sure enough, I saw lots of evidence of some really ugly chemicals being produced from ethanol by passage thru the fogger. I sure as heck do not want those chemicals in my hives or showing up in my honey. I strongly suspect some of those ethanol decomposition products will be carcinogens. In fact it would be amazing if they are not. I saw enough without even adding any oxalic acid to the mix that I knew I would never use the process and never suggest anyone else should use it either.
> 
> 
> I also looked at potential explosion issues due to putting ethanol and ethanol decomposition products into the hive. I found you could get ignition, but the pressure produced was so low all you got was a bit of a "Whoosh" sound that did not lift the lid nor blow out the candle used inside the hive as an ignition source. Three ignitions over the course of a few minutes was only enough heat to mildly warm the plastic foundation in the hive.
> 
> 
> As there is a danger involved in honey contamination with unknown toxic organics produced by the water gas reaction and as no one has demonstrated that this application actually kills any mites I would suggest it is not very smart to use it. You are also breaking the law by introducing an unregistered formulation into your hive.
> 
> 
> Dick



If I am interpreting something incorrectly with my previous statement, I apologize. It was an attempt to put things in perspective and not an attempt to change anything that is. My perspective was what I said and based on what I can see which I am willing to show so that it can be pointed out where I am wrong. I got a personal message saying I was making things up and maybe I am but if so, not on purpose. This is what I used to make my statement and I am not above an interpretation error but do my best to not make things up. I did not even post with ill will of any sort.
I was just carrying on with my theme that most things get done or tried before people go though the hassle of getting permits and paying for test.

That said, I do not feel that it is a wrong thing to experiment as long as it is done with the intention and mechanisms to do it in a way to do no harm to others.

Cheers
gww


----------



## RedAceBees

Update:
My PHD Chemist was very interested in the subject, but came back quickly and reported that she couldn't work on LiCl as a miticide, it seems that a patent already exists. You can find it here: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017042240A1/en

Additionally, reading the patent application did indicate that the LiCl solution was deadly to open brood and therefore likely only useful as a treatment for package bees or late fall/early spring use.

"Table 5 summarizes the results expressed as survival rate of larvae or pupae. All larvae were lost within 72 hours implicating a strong lethal effect of LiCl on larvae. Since 25 mM LiCl is tolerated by bees very well but larvae viability is crucially impacted already at 10 mM LiCl, it follows that LiCl should ideally be applied when egg laying is decreased. Such a phase naturally occurs between the calender start of summer6 and the overwintering period."


----------



## little_john

That isn't a Patent - it's a Patent Application. I'd be most surprised if it's approved, as this isn't an invention - it's a novel application of a chemical which already exists. If applications themselves could be patented, then there would be millions of patents already in existence for various computer programs. Find a novel use for (say) common table salt ... and then patent it ? I don't think so.

But - even if a Patent were to be granted - how could it ever be policed/defended ? Lithium Chloride is freely available (if a tad expensive) - so anybody, anywhere can buy it, and for unspecified use.
LJ


----------



## viesest

RedAceBees said:


> My PHD Chemist was very interested in the subject, but came back quickly and reported that she couldn't work on LiCl *as a miticide*,


Is LiCl also patented as a chemical for inducing brood break?


----------



## SuiGeneris

little_john said:


> That isn't a Patent - it's a Patent Application. I'd be most surprised if it's approved, as this isn't an invention - it's a novel application of a chemical which already exists. If applications themselves could be patented, then there would be millions of patents already in existence for various computer programs. Find a novel use for (say) common table salt ... and then patent it ? I don't think so.
> 
> But - even if a Patent were to be granted - how could it ever be policed/defended ? Lithium Chloride is freely available (if a tad expensive) - so anybody, anywhere can buy it, and for unspecified use.
> LJ


Actually, most patents are for processes, not specific compounds/methods. Its trivial for competitors to come up with a slightly different compound that acts in the same fashion (e.g. another lithium salt); general methods are harder to overcome. Indeed, this patent covers not only LiCl, but also "An organic or inorganic salt of lithium for use in prophylactic and/or therapeutic treatment of Varroa destructor mite infestation of honey bees", and covers a range of application/treatment methods.

To use your example of table salt, there are over 50 approved/active patents using table salt in a novel fashion.

There is a very good chance this group will get this patent. Enforcement against individual beekeepers may be difficult (but easy against companies selling lithium salts), but the difficulty of enforcement has no bearing on whether a patent gets approved.


----------



## little_john

When I said "Find a novel use for (say) common table salt ... and then patent it ?" - By 'it' I was referring to the Table Salt itself. But then I suspect you knew that.

Providing a substance has at least one other legitimate use, it's sale cannot reasonably be restricted. Oxalic Acid as a wood bleach is a good example. Ammonium Sulphamate (unapproved for use as a weed-killer within the EU - but still widely used as such) is another. And so I can't envisage restrictions on the sale of Lithium Salts any time soon.

"Patent Applied For" is a good bluffing tool to keep naive competitors at bay, and you are quite correct to say that the difficulty of enforcement has no bearing on whether a patent gets approved, but it IS fundamental to whether adopting such a course of action is worthwhile or not. To apply for a Patent which cannot be enforced is a complete waste of time and money. 

The Patent system favours big businesses, who have deep pockets to safeguard their interests - but do nothing for those without the wherewithal to do so. Langstroth is perhaps the perfect example of this - attempting to defend his Patent cost him his apiary, his business, AND his health. He would have been far better-off not to have bothered.

Contrary to popular belief, the Patent System does very little to promote innovation by offering affordable protection.
LJ


----------



## SuiGeneris

little_john said:


> Providing a substance has at least one other legitimate use, it's sale cannot reasonably be restricted.


Its sale cannot be restricted - except for the use which is patented. Should a supply chemical sell LiCl knowing it will be for treatment of bees, than they are in violation of the patent and the patent holder can sue. These types of lawsuits are fairly common, and are almost always won by the patent holder. In theory, they could also sue beekeeps who get it from a non-bee supplier and then use it on their bees (although these kinds of actions are rare as the cost of pursuing the case is usually more than any penalties).




little_john said:


> Oxalic Acid as a wood bleach is a good example. Ammonium Sulphamate (unapproved for use as a weed-killer within the EU - but still widely used as such) is another. And so I can't envisage restrictions on the sale of Lithium Salts any time soon.


I think you are confused about what patents do and how they offer protection to the inventor/owner. They do not restrict sales of an item; they only limit where that item (or process) can be legally used. No sales restrictions/etc enter into the marketplace to protect the patent; rather, it is up to the patent holder to monitor for, and pursue violations. In some cases this amounts to a sales ban (e.g. if you've invented some sort of doo-hickey), but when it comes to multi-purpose items like chemicals, all a patent does is restrict where and how it can be used - not its sale.



little_john said:


> "Patent Applied For" is a good bluffing tool to keep naive competitors at bay, and you are quite correct to say that the difficulty of enforcement has no bearing on whether a patent gets approved, but it IS fundamental to whether adopting such a course of action is worthwhile or not. To apply for a Patent which cannot be enforced is a complete waste of time and money.


And given that this patent has a good chance of being accepted, its hardly a waste of their money.



little_john said:


> Contrary to popular belief, the Patent System does very little to promote innovation by offering affordable protection.
> LJ


Having a number of patents myself, including two which I have pursued violators on, I have to disagree. Big businesses are loath to violate them, as patent courts tend to scale penalties to the size of the violator and size of the violation. Its simply cheaper for them to buy-out or licence the patent.


----------



## DocBB

I tried

I have 3 hives and i harvested 2 swarm that i decided to be my experimental subjetcs
we have varroa mite since one year now i do operate on tropicalized 10 frames Langstroth (20cm deep)

For hive #4 I was still below 10 falls/D but on hive #5 around 23/D
I planned the following protocol, and you can tell me what you think about it.
Counting mites falls over 48 hours before processing
treatment 1g Li carbonate (27mmol) in one or two spoons of cider vinegar and then in 1 litre of syrup.
Counting on 72 hours then counting again on 48 hours and finally counting on 48 hours 14 days later. 

Here is what I have observed this week.
So I first did a 48-hour count.
hive #5 i observed 12/D (24 in 48 hours)
hive #4 it was at 13/D (26 in 48 hours)
I processed hive #5 first on the same day after the 1st count.
Then I treated hive #4 with a 2-day delay as a precaution.
3 days after treatment (over 3 days)
I counted 262 falls on hive #5 and 73 on hive #4
I was able to do a 2nd count of 150 falls on hive #5 between the 3rd and 5th day after treatment so over 48 hours.
I couldn't do it on hive #4 because of the 2-day delay.

no particular bee over mortality


----------



## JWChesnut

DocBB said:


> I tried
> 
> I have 3 hives and i harvested 2 swarm that i decided to be my experimental subjetcs
> we have varroa mite since one year now i do operate on tropicalized 10 frames Langstroth (20cm deep)


Without a control population, this is not science.


----------



## MichiganMike

JWChesnut said:


> Without a control population, this is not science.


I don’t think the OP claimed he was a scientist simply a beekeeper sharing an experience that he thought others might find interesting.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Lithium contamination of honeybee products and its accumulation in brood as a consequence of anti-varroa treatment

Highlights
• Lithium chloride is an emergent varroa control substance in beekeeping.

• Lithium has an impact on both human well-being and honeybee health.

• There is risk of lithium entering human food chain inadvertently.

• Lithium accumulates in honeybee products such as pollen and honey.

• Lithium accumulates in honeybee brood and increases mortality in adults.


Abstract
Varroa destructor, the primary honeybee pathogen, is kept in check by various chemical compounds which may enter the human diet through honeybee products. Lithium is an emerging varroa control substance, and we investigated its accumulation in honey, bee bread, brood and adults along with the mortality of bees. Increased lithium concentrations were detected in workers, fed individually once per os with 10 µL of 25 mM LiCl in sucrose solution (6.50–40.10 mg/kg) or had the same solution available ad libitum (39.25–266.00 mg/kg). A three-day treatment of honeybee colonies with 25 mM LiCl in 1L/day sucrose solution increased lithium concentrations in five-day-old larvae, honey, and bee bread: up to 45.0, 1.2, and 47.0 mg/kg, respectively. Lithium concentrations peaked three days post-treatment in both larvae and honey and increased worker mortality was observed. The control colonies exhibited lithium concentrations below the limit of quantification (0.5 mg/kg). Prudence in lithium use is advised.

Lithium contamination of honeybee products and its accumulation in brood as a consequence of anti-varroa treatment
Janez Prešern, Uroš Kur, Jernej Bubnič, Martin Šalac, Food Chemistry, Volume 330, 15 November 2020, 127334, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127334

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814620311961


----------



## Robert Holcombe

In my memory banks are prior LiCl discussion and research on this subject. I remember a major problem. The idea died out. I cannot put my "finger on it" but a clue to the problem maybe larva or brood effects never mind the risk to honey and humans. 

So be careful and wait for EPA approval.


----------



## MikelB

Upside: Fewer bi-polar bees out there.


----------



## little_john

SuiGeneris said:


> Having a number of patents myself, including two which I have pursued violators on, I have to disagree. Big businesses are loath to violate them, as patent courts tend to scale penalties to the size of the violator and size of the violation. Its simply cheaper for them to buy-out or licence the patent.


Seeing as this thread has just been given the kiss of life - just thought I'd take the opportunity to comment re: the above. Patents do NOT work for procedures/ applications/ inventions that people can easily and readily avail themselves of. Strewth - we only need to look as far as Lorenzo Langstroth to see evidence of this ! That guy should have died the richest man in the graveyard, and not as a pauper. There wasn't even enough money in his estate to provide for a grave headstone - Root & others had to hand around a begging bowl in order to purchase that.

D.L.Adair tried making money from his patented beehive by selling 'Trade-Marks' - which were disks of stamped metal attached to the hive body. Anyone caught using an Adair hive without one would then be subjected to the full force of the law ... in theory. So how do you police that ? You can't. It doesn't work.

Because of this, Gallup and Adair decided from the outset that their new Long Hive (which out-performed the Langstroth hive - duly confirmed by A.I. Root) would be Patent-free. And was one of the principle reasons why it never caught on. Because there was nothing for the Agents to sell (the 'rights' to use a Langstroth Hive had been sold for 10 dollars a time during the 1860's & 70's - big money back then. But how much of that $10 did Langstroth ever receive ? )

And yes - Patents *can* be used to stifle innovation - a good example is a major American welding equipment manufacturer who has filed a patent for the use of exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine to be used as a shielding gas - but they have not been required to demonstrate this technique. Indeed, this method has never been developed. But - because of their all-encompassing 'umbrella' pre-emptive patent for this, no-one in their right minds would now spend serious amounts of time and/or money pursuing this, only to be robbed of the rewards if/when it is shown to work.

FWIW - I will shortly be revealing a minimal-management (2 visits a year) fixed-volume horizontal hive - equivalent to five Warre boxes - which contains 24 standing-frames. I believe it to be a totally novel design. Will I attempt to patent it ? Not a chance - wouldn't waste my money.
LJ


----------



## DocBB

Next try not in sirup this time



> After a slightly late harvest this WE, I resumed my tests with Lithium. Last year I had incorporated Li Carbonate in syrup with some efficiency but there was clearly a problem with the storage of this syrup and the risk that the following year some of this syrup would end up in the highs. This year I chose to treat with Li chloride in the drinking water of the hives. I dissolved 2g of Li Chloride in one liter of water. The carbonate does not dissolve completely in the water whereas for the chloride, no problem. I then gave 50cl to each hive (4 hives with 2 liters of this mixture).





> They take it easily, 50cl are taken in 24h with a strong colony.
> For the queen no incidence for me and all those which tested, even on colonies very badly in point which could be saved with lithium.
> For the brood, it seems that in the larval state there can be an incidence according to the dose. I could see last year a very brief fall of some larvae on a significant concentration 50mmol, it is written above. At 10 or 25 mmol, I did not observe these drops. On the other hand my hives treated last year are doing well, I was able to divide them and harvest a rise on the stump.





> The formula to make the mixture is: for X mmol per liter you have to divide the molar mass by 1000 and then multiply by X, which gives the quantity in grams to put in one liter.
> In the case of LiCl, the molar mass is 42.394/1000 X 25 (to have 25mmol/L) = 1.05985 grams.
> For carbonate, the molar mass is 73.891/1000 X 25 (always 25mmol/L) = 1.84727 grams.


and results



> Before treatment, the 2 new hives that had a break in egg-laying in the spring at the division are for the moment only slightly affected by varroa (counting over 7 days at less than 5).
> On the Kenyan, 9 over 7 days and on the old Dadant, the most active, about a hundred falls over 7 days.
> 48 hours after having given the drink I notice that for the old Dadant and the Kenyan the feeders are empty, for the 2 new hives they are still half and three quarters full.
> Still after 48 hours *I counted about 650 falls* on the old Dadant and about a hundred on the Kenyan one.
> For the 2 new ones, I wait until the feeders are empty to count. For the old well infested Dadant, I continue to count and I am thinking of treating again six days after the first treatment.





> On the well infected Dadant I was around 15 natural falls/day, with treatment there were at least 970 falls in 6 days.
> The Li does not dislodge, a priori, the varroa mite on the capped brood, on the commonly accepted estimate of 100 varroa mites in the hive for a natural fall/day, with 15 falls/day I must find 1500 of them on the diaper after treatment, but a part remains in the capped brood. With the 2nd treatment I will be able to compare, then if I do a 3rd treatment again at 6 days, I will have covered a complete cycle of capped brood. With 3 treatments I should fall (in theory) to zero varroa.





> Following the counts on all the hives and on 2 days ½ (60h) then on 24 hours,
> the two Dadant who only had one treatment on August 08: 0 on 60h then 1 on 24 hours for one; and, 14 on 60h then 7 on 24 hours for the other.
> For the old, well-infested Dadant which received two treatments on August 8 and 14: 748 over 60 hours then 111 over 24 hours.
> Finally, the Kenyan who also received two treatments on the same dates: 81 over 60 hours then 24 hours a day. It is always well charred varroa, not natural falls where they still move for the most part, especially over 24 hours.
> At the end of the week, I will do a 3rd treatment for the Dadant and the Kenyan and a 2nd for the Dadant which had only one treatment and which had 14 falls over 60 hours.
> Perhaps the most effective solution would be to leave them with continuous Li water for about 20 days to cover a complete cycle and that as the births occur, the varroas of the brood are all eliminated.
> I am also thinking about the idea of putting Li in candy for the winter to replace the AO treatment.


----------



## Gray Goose

Neet stuff docBB
when you get the winter candy recipe down please share, some like an interesting way to come out in the spring Varroa free.

GG


----------



## Serge Bibi




----------

