# Oxalic acid deposits and mites - where do they meet?



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Just trying to gain a better understanding of how oxalic acid affects mites:

When OA is vaporized into a hive, the OA fumes spread pretty much throughout the hive to eventually come out of the gas phase and deposit as tiny OA crystal on the interior surfaces of the hive. This would include OA deposits on the hive walls, the wooden frames, the surface of the comb, the bees themselves, etc.

As the mites move about the hive as they go through their life cycle, they come into contact with the OA crystals and die.

Where is the typical/average location in the hive where the mites contact the OA crystals? Is it on the outer surface of the comb? The rims of open cells? The caps of closed cells? Is it at the bottom of cells which were open and empty when the OA was vaporized into the hive? On the bees themselves?

Does anyone know? Does anyone have some well thought out guesses?

Thanks.

shinbone


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

OA crystals are quite hygroscopic so I think they would shorly become a low ph moist film. The feet and the probiscus of the mite take a licking literally and figuratively.
Pretty much guess work! I have wondered why eggs and open larvae dont seem to be affected? Why does it not affect the tongue of the bees?


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Good questions. I wonder if the bees covering the open brood pretty much protect it from exposure? I always assumed that the OA killed the mites by direct contact, but as long as it has been in use there has surely been research on the mechanism of it's effect.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Explain please what happens when the bee breaths in the vapor. Does larvae breath?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

shinbone said:


> Does anyone know? Does anyone have some well thought out guesses?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> shinbone


I may be wrong about this, and I expect someone will affirm or correct me, but I believe that Randy Oliver was asked this same question and he didn't know. 

Is it the vapors entering the spiricals of the mite and harming it internally? Or is the OA coating the outside of the mite and harming it that way? Why doesn't OA harm bees too? Or does it, but not noticeably so?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Is it the vapors entering the spiricals of the mite and harming it internally? Or is the OA coating the outside of the mite and harming it that way? Why doesn't OA harm bees too? Or does it, but not noticeably so?


I got to believe from the reports that you have to treat multiple times that the residues are not what is killing the mites. Otherwise it would take one treatment and that's it. OA does harm bees but it is like smoking it will take a long time to kill you and it won't kill everyone.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Just trying to gain a better understanding of how oxalic acid affects mites

No one knows for sure the mechanism by which oxalic acid kills mites. There are several theories, but no real evidence.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

> OA does harm bees


and you know this how?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

camero7 said:


> and you know this how?


It is an insecticide that you have to control the dosage very accurately. That means you are trying to limit the damage, enough to kill the mites and not so much to harm the bees.


----------



## Harvey Wray (Nov 14, 2009)

I treat in December when there is no brood. I do only one treatment per year.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Acebird said:


> . . . you have to control the dosage very accurately.


Actually, this is not true in my limited experience. I can vary the dosage by as much as 50% and I don't see any noticeable difference in the mite fall or effect on the bees.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

My best guess is associated with what is known about DE and how it works. DE is effective only if correctly applied. and that is as a very light dust that the insects will walk through. piles of it they tend to avoid. and you want that fine dust on everything. as the insects walk they pick up tiny amounts of the dust. this dust is harmful to them and they are unable to groom themselves from it.

Now for the differences in DE and OA. Mainly this is a difference in the mechanics of the harm. DE is actually like covering the insect in microscopic knives that cut thorough there bodies exoskeleton. I have sen it suggested that OA is a chemical injury to the mite. I have seen it explained in two different ways but I woudl consider both a chemical function rather than a mechanical one. One is it alters the Ph of the surface and causes it to be harmful to the mite. the other is simply the OA causes a chemical burn on the feet of the mite. IN truth the two could simply between different ways of explaining the same thing. For me the how is not as important as the fact. OA does harm mites.

I do recognize the importance of the how in exploring the possibility of more effective methods of application.

So in the interest of that I suspect that the primary source of exposure woudl be where the mite lives. and that for the most part is in a capped cell. Here is my reasoning for that guess. If I where to release some harmful gas in an open area. people would simply move away if they where aware of it. I have little doubt there are spaces within a treated hive a mite can move to and not be exposed. But if I lock those people in a room and then fill it with the gas. they are going to die.In this case it is more like fill the room with the gas then have the people go in and shut the door behind them. It is also a coating and not a gas for those prone to getting confused.

For me the most likely location fro exposure is the capped cell though. After it has previously been treated.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Acebird said:


> OA does harm bees but it is like smoking it will take a long time to kill you and it won't kill everyone.


If that analogy is accurate, then we have no need to fear using OA because the workers die within a few months and the queen is superceded within a few years. None of that is long enough for something which takes many years to kill like cigarette smoking to have any affect.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Daniel Y said:


> For me the most likely location for exposure is the capped cell though. After it has previously been treated.


I wondered about this, too. But, since an empty uncapped cell is small and is a dead-end volume, there is minimal air circulation into it, and I don't think much if any OA vapor would make it into the bottom of a cell before the vapor turned back into a solid and was no longer mobile.

It seems like the most likely location for a mite to contact OA would be on cell caps and on the rim of open cells. Perhaps they crawl through and get coated by the OA as they scuttle from one cell to another?


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

I have read somewhere that with OA dribble in sugar syrup that the PH of the bees haemoglyph spikes for some time due to the bees cleaning off the sugar syrup and thereby ingesting the OA and that this is harmfull to the mites feeding on the bees, I should imagine this could also be true for OA vapour and not only direct contact with crystals of OA
Johno


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

I'm with Shinbone and I laugh how those with no actual experience try to act knowledgeable and even teach those who do have experience. If my AO crystals are clumped it's hard to get an exact dosage. When in doubt I err on the higher side with no noticeable difference in performance or effect on the bees. 20% to 30% is about as comfortable as I go but I don't doubt I may have gone as high as 50%.

Where do the varroa and OA meet? Not sure, but they do and the effects are on target.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

From the studies the Europeans (having used OA for many years) have completed, they believe OA actually enters the cuticles of the mites and destroys the cuticle rendering the mite basically footless. It also enters the mouthparts and destroys the cuticle there. They believe it enters the breathing tubes as well basically suffocating the mite. It is not a poison per se. Since OA takes some time to destroy these mite parts, that's why you see the most mite drop approximately 3 days after vaporization.

OA vapors reform after vaporization to fine crystals and coat all the exposed surfaces of the hive. It does not enter capped cells. It is not the vapors in of themselves that kill rather the reformed crystals that do so.


----------



## DRAKOS (Oct 17, 2011)

A study in the apiculture departement of the university of Thessaloniki, has shown that, when we driple the OA-sugarwater mixture, on the bees, the mouth of varroa is burnt , and it dies. 
When we vaporize the OA, the size of the molecule of the fumes is such ,that the varroa can not breath it and dies of sufocation , while the bee has no problem.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

DRAKOS said:


> A study in the apiculture departement of the university of Thessaloniki, has shown that, when we driple the OA-sugarwater mixture, on the bees, the mouth of varroa is burnt , and it dies.
> When we vaporize the OA, the size of the molecule of the fumes is such ,that the varroa can not breath it and dies of sufocation , while the bee has no problem.


From other reports, it also enters the cuticles on the feet destroying them rendering footless. Reports also suggest that it enters their breathing tubes suffocating them.

While self-serving since I do sell OA Vaporizers, OA treatment in either dribble or vaporization should be highly considered as part of a varroa treatment strategy.


----------



## Jim 134 (Dec 1, 2007)

shinbone said:


> Just trying to gain a better understanding of how oxalic acid affects mites:
> 
> When OA is vaporized into a hive, the OA fumes spread pretty much throughout the hive to eventually come out of the gas phase and deposit as tiny OA crystal on the interior surfaces of the hive. This would include OA deposits on the hive walls, the wooden frames, the surface of the comb, the bees themselves, etc.
> 
> ...


This is off label use of this product (oxalic acid) 
You do realize this is not an approved method for controlling mites in the USA :s





BEE HAPPY Jim 134


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Jim 134 said:


> You do realize this is not an approved method for controlling mites in the USA :s BEE HAPPY Jim 134


If aspirin or penicillin was not approved for use in the USA and the rest of the world used it ............. would you?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

shinbone said:


> I wondered about this, too. But, since an empty uncapped cell is small and is a dead-end volume, there is minimal air circulation into it, and I don't think much if any OA vapor would make it into the bottom of a cell before the vapor turned back into a solid and was no longer mobile.
> 
> It seems like the most likely location for a mite to contact OA would be on cell caps and on the rim of open cells. Perhaps they crawl through and get coated by the OA as they scuttle from one cell to another?


Which still does not identify the mechanism, only speculation about exposure.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Jim 134 said:


> This is off label use of this product (oxalic acid)
> You do realize this is not an approved method for controlling mites in the USA :s
> 
> 
> ...


It is not being used as an insecticide or miticide it is being used as per the label as a wood bleach. It just so happens that there are mites inside the box being bleached. There is no warning on the label cautioning one to not use OA near bees.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Which still does not identify the mechanism, only speculation about exposure.


True dat!


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Jim 134 said:


> This is off label use of this product (oxalic acid)
> You do realize this is not an approved method for controlling mites in the USA :s



Yes, I do realize that.

Jim 134 - I am curious why you feel the need to point out that the U.S. government has not approved OA for mite control? I think that info is pretty much common knowledge.


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

I hit my hives after the honey has been pulled and before the first snow, typically early-mid October here. I vaporize once a week for 3 weeks. A vaporizer works much better than the heated pipe method, I don't dribble.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

I was looking for more info on the mechanism by which oxalic acid impacts varroa mites, and was surprised to find that there is a commercial product that uses oxalic acid to target mites:

http://www.biovet.ch/en/Imkerei/oxuvar.html

The product, _Oxuvar _is produced by a German company, and I have no expectation that that product is registered or available in the US. However, they did apply for a US Trademark for "Oxuvar" in 2010:
http://www.trademarkia.com/map/oxuvar-79078935.html


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

shinbone said:


> It seems like the most likely location for a mite to contact OA would be on cell caps and on the rim of open cells.


The mites that are on the bees are the ones most likely to contact OA since they readily exposed........


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

snl - but . . . if it is only the mites on bees that the AO vapor contacts, then that would be a very small percentage of the mites that receive a dose of AO, and the hive would need many tretmetns to get most of the mites. Imagine how few mites of the total mite population are on bees during the 10 minute OA vaporizing and depositing process.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

SB ....You misunderstood or I did not say it correctly. The ones on the bees are not the only ones impacted, they are just more exposed than the others that may be in cells etc.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I was looking for more info on the mechanism by which oxalic acid impacts varroa mites, and was surprised to find that there is a commercial product that uses oxalic acid to target mites:
> 
> http://www.biovet.ch/en/Imkerei/oxuvar.html
> 
> ...


Beyer perhaps?


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

After all these years I find it curious that scientists have not positively identified the exact mechanism which destroys the mites. If OA burned their feet ... burned their mouth ... enters the cuticles ... are those not things which could be easily identified under a microscope? 

I'm not a scientist so there may be a good explanation that I'm not aware of. It just seems that those types of harsh effects on the mites should be fairly easy to identify. Any thoughts?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Mike Gillmore said:


> Any thoughts?


? Only beekeepers w/ time on their hands are interested in knowing? How many of us are interested in funding the research when knowing it works is what really matters. Just speculating.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

shinbone said:


> Jim 134 - I am curious why you feel the need to point out that the U.S. government has not approved OA for mite control? I think that info is pretty much common knowledge.


Not to anybody new. There are a lot of chemical uses that are not approved that are in other countries. It could be an economic issue or it could be that the long term affects not only of bees is not known.

For a long time the use of cigarette smoke during pregnancy affected babies development but it was not known. It is not easy to tell what long term affects chemicals have on offspring so it is hard to say that it does no harm. Now when you say you don't know how it works then you are really in the dark.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

It would be interesting to treat an infested observation hive. Or just some caged infested bees - under a close up video camera. Wouldn't be all that hard.... Maybe a DSLR video of a mixed frame with some bees under a push in cage inside an incubator...

Sounds like solid entertainment to me.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

You bet, I'll buy a ticket!
Any volunteers with Observation Hives?


----------



## Jim 134 (Dec 1, 2007)

shinbone said:


> Yes, I do realize that.
> 
> Jim 134 - I am curious why you feel the need to point out that the U.S. government has not approved OA for mite control? I think that info is pretty much common knowledge.



Do you realize Adee honey farms use a unapproved chemical in their hives about 3 to 5 years ago and got fine about $13,000 for doing it.




BEE HAPPY Jim 134


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I have treated an observation hive with oxalic about 11 years ago. Hard to see through the vapor at the time. You see crystals they are cleaning up later... I didn't film it...


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Jim 134 said:


> Do realize Adee honey farms use a unapproved chemical in their hives about 3 to 5 years ago and got fine about $13,000 for doing it


Somehow, I get the feeling that you are not so concerned about about whether I get fined, but instead are waving around the threat of government sanctions to discourage people from treating. In other words, you have a personal agenda you are grinding on. No problem, I just hope people see your post for what it is.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Oxalic is a safe, effective, cheap miticide that has been used with great success and with virtually no down side in much of the beekeeping world for a couple decades now. Why does that continue to bother some folks?


----------



## Vance G (Jan 6, 2011)

It is the fear that somewhere, someone is succeeding without government permission.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Or maybe that more restrictions may come down because of abuse of priveldge?


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

There was a post in another forum (but darn if I can find it now) that referenced a study that showed the mites with legs before the treatment and mites w/o legs after the treatments. But if I remember correctly, there was some talk as to whether the pictures were "photo-shopped." 

I'll keep looking, but I'm guessing Radar will find it before I do......


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I've heard the acidic hemolymph theory before but have to be somewhat skeptical of it. I would assume the PH of an insects hemolymph would have to be maintained fairly steady for biological functions to remain optimal.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Jim 134 said:


> This is off label use of this product (oxalic acid)
> You do realize this is not an approved method for controlling mites in the USA :s
> 
> 
> ...


Of course you do know that this discussion is strictly academic in nature? You don't think that any of us would actually advocate the use of oxalic acid do you? I mean, even if IS safe effective and economical - and legal pretty much world wide???? We are just curious. Yeah. Curious - that's it.

Seriously you have a point. We should probably either all shut the .... Shut up about it entirely before we draw attention or openly and aggressively as a group call shenanigans on the absurdity of this being an issue at all. I vote B.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

A related question. Have there ever been any documented cases of hive deaths attributed to oa treatments? How about personal injury to beekeepers or bystanders? Environmental damage?

Serious question - not sarcasm.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Isn't wood bleach poison to human consumption? What are the affects of it being in the honey?


----------



## Jim 134 (Dec 1, 2007)

David LaFerney said:


> A related question. Have there ever been any documented cases of hive deaths attributed to oa treatments? How about personal injury to beekeepers or bystanders? Environmental damage?
> 
> Serious question - not sarcasm.


 I like live inside and not have to give up my assets to the courts or lawyers if you want to give away your you can.

This is enough of and injury to me this fine was paid without finding. Adee honey farms did not want to go to court with this case of using off label chemicals. 

" Do you realize Adee honey farms use a unapproved chemical in their hives about 3 to 5 years ago and got fine about $13,000 for doing it."


IMHO

The better question is how come no one is trying to get approval for this or other's chemical (s) to be used on bees ??? 


Does anyone here even know the process you have to go through to get approved ???

I do remember when certain (wax moths) went off the market in the USA and the eighties and never got approved again???



BEE HAPPY Jim 134


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Jim 134 said:


> The better question is how come no one is trying to get approval for this or other's chemical (s) to be used on bees ???


I thought there were delivery systems that use the chemical that are approved. Approval requires a lot of testing and costs to the manufacturer. It is not something a little guy can do.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Jim 134 said:


> The better question is how come no one is trying to get approval for this or other's chemical (s) to be used on bees ???


Because getting epa approval for pesticides is an expensive process, and OA is cheap and it's approval would cut into the profits being made from the sale of other treatments.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

shinbone said:


> If that analogy is accurate, then we have no need to fear using OA because the workers die within a few months and the queen is superceded within a few years. None of that is long enough for something which takes many years to kill like cigarette smoking to have any affect.


You might be correct if air movement was the only thing that caused the disbursement of the OA. But it is not. Now this is going to get complicated.

There are actually sever things that cause movement of a particle. or I will simply call it dust. In this case OA dust.

First of all air itself is always moving. and in the process of vaporizing the heat alone will increase air movement. But as you say that movement will contribute little to the placeing of dust inside of a cell. I will do not agree but will not argue that point. I don't need to. I have much more reliable forces on my side.

Any element will seek a balance within an environment. eventually dispersing to a perfect balance within the entire atmosphere. That is why farts do not stay in your pants. but they stink up the entire room. so will a dust.

This movement of the particles as they seek a balance will create air movement of their own. as they move air moves to replace the space they just vacated.

There are also other forces of attraction and these are the ones that most assures every surface in the hive will be treated. Consider it a static cling of sorts. It is the same sort of thing that causes pollen granules to cling to a bee. Again this attraction is on a balanced scale as well.

Then there is disbursement via the bees themselves. bees will be coated with the OA dust and as they work in the cells cleaning them for the queen to lay in they themselves will transfer dust to the walls of the cell.

That is just a few of the other methods I can think of.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I was looking for more info on the mechanism by which oxalic acid impacts varroa mites, and was surprised to find that there is a commercial product that uses oxalic acid to target mites:
> 
> http://www.biovet.ch/en/Imkerei/oxuvar.html
> 
> ...


Possibly some hope that eventually it will be approved specifically for treating hives?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Then someone can package and label it such and sell it at a higher cost than that which is not labeled specifically as a miticide.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Jim 134 said:


> Do you realize Adee honey farms use a unapproved chemical in their hives about 3 to 5 years ago and got fine about $13,000 for doing it. BEE HAPPY Jim 134


***************
From what I heard, they weren't using OA. I believe the Addee's were using Tactik (Amitraz).


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Isn't wood bleach poison to human consumption? What are the affects of it being in the honey?


Wouldn't know about everything labeled wood bleach. But OA is something more like Citric Acid and is found in certain food.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

They were fined for the off label use of amitraz, but there was another material sighted in the findings which may have been OA, I am not sure.

Rader? Please?


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Oxalic acid is harmful to the eyes, skin and respiratory tract according to the USEPA. Is that something you want in your hives?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

My hives are not my lungs or my eyes or my skin. The effects of OA dissipate over time. 

You might also ask if you want OA in your body, your digestive system. OA is a substance which is present in many food stuffs consumed by humans. So, in all likelihood you yourself have eaten it w/ no dire consequences.

Properly handled and applied there should be no ill effects from OA use. That said, anyone w/ a lack of knowledge can do themselves harm handling all sorts of so called harmless materials.

Be smart or leave it be.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> They were fined for the off label use of amitraz, 

There are a lot of references on *Beesource *to the Adees getting a fine for off-label use of Tactic/Amitraz. However, there is very little in terms of *non-Beesource* info about this. :lookout:As they say, talk is cheap. inch:



I am still looking for independent confirmation.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

lazy shooter said:


> Oxalic acid is harmful to the eyes, skin and respiratory tract according to the USEPA. Is that something you want in your hives?


So is Citric Acid, And I don't suggest you get that in your eye or in a cut either.enough of it on your skin long enough and it will burn you also.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

http://feql.wsu.edu/MSDS/oxalic acid.pdf


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

An important fact to keep in mind is that OA has been used in Europe for decades with good results and no bad side effects.

The people who like to speculate that maybe OA is bad would be more pursuasive if their theories would first account for the wide success OA demonstrates on the other side of the Atlantic, otherwise their musings don't pass the laugh test.

JMHO


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

lazy shooter said:


> Oxalic acid is harmful to the eyes, skin and respiratory tract according to the USEPA. Is that something you want in your hives?


Yes LS you are quite right. Pure OA must be handled with care and is appropriately labeled. . It is,though, sold in hardware stores for use by the general public in THEIR homes as are many other hazardous products. The question I previously posed was why does anyone else really care what others are doing as long as it dosent affect them.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

As I noted earlier, the story about Adee Honey Co getting fined for off-label pesticide use in hives seems to have been buried over time. I found no "official" sources. I did find a "Highbeam" link that wants a fee paid to read the whole article. Here is the teaser they offer:


> The Minnesota Department of Agriculture issued the following news release:
> 
> The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) recently concluded an enforcement action against Adee Honey Farms, of Bruce, South Dakota. Adee Honey Farms produces honey and in 2006 had several thousand bee colonies in Minnesota.
> Adee Honey Farms paid a $14,000 settlement penalty to the MDA for illegal use of pesticides within bee colonies to control Varroa mites and for making a false statement to MDA inspectors. MDA learned of the pesticide misuse in June 2006 during a random pesticide use inspection at two Adee Honey Farm bee colonies in Yellow Medicine County. MDA inspectors noticed blue paper …
> ...


There is also some info in the Michigan Beekeepers Association newsletter:



> MICHIGAN BEEKEEPERS' ASSOCIATION
> Minutes of January 20, 2007
> 
> 
> ...


Note that the link embedded in the article is no longer functional.

Beesource and a couple of other forums have plenty of posts regarding this situation, but the value of some of that is questionable.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Ah, so it wasn't Amitraz and OA, it was Fluvalinate and OA. The pesticide which they were fined for was fluvalinate, not OA. I believe that one will find that as far as the USDA/EPA is concerned OA is not recognized by those Agencies as a pesticide. So I believe.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Additionally, it was the State of Minnessota that did the enforcement, not the Federal gov't. Meaning, who knows how aggressive each state will be in prosecuting any use of OA in a hive.

And it wasn't that Adee Honey farms simply used Fluvalinate, it was they that they bought it in bulk, not the prelabled Fluvalinate that came with warnings and instructions for use in hive.

This all seems quite far removed from someone vaporizing a non-controlled, naturally occurring substance into their hive.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Those that kept bees in the 2000-2005 timeframe understand what was going on. We had 2 legal choices for miticides, Apistan and Check Mite. Both of them had resistance problems and were largely ineffective. Aamitraz was effective though illegal and was quite commonly used in 
lots of different formulations. I didn't choose to go that route but I understand many did. Formic was the product of choice for many though, again, there was no EPA approved delivery mechanism until MAQS came along and about that same time was when OA became popular with commercials. Frustration was pretty high in the beekeeping world around the time of this incident. There was a general sentiment among beekeepers that everyone was telling them what they can't use, but nothing had been approved that was effective. Adees were hardly alone on this, I think some of the powers that be just decided they needed to make an example of someone so they just went after the biggest one.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

I'm a petroleum engineer and have very limited knowledge of the bio sciences (one four hour college course 50 plus years ago). In this thread, someone posted that oxalic fumes leave a residue of granular oxalic acid. To me this means that it is contained within the hive for a long period of time. Those of you that are knowledgeable about such things may discard the dangers of a long lasting, potentially harmful chemical in your bee hives. Due to my ignorance of oxalic acid, I will not opt for using it in my hives. I should have written that, I won't be using oxalic acid due to my ignorance of the product.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

lazy shooter said:


> To me this means that it is contained within the hive for a long period of time.


Why do you assume this? Many, if not most, organic compounds break down over time when in the environment. Since the OA treatment must be repeated after 7 days, obviously the OA breaks down and is no longer active relatively quickly.

Everyone is free to deal with varroa however they want, but it seems to me this beginning assumption is wrong. 

FWIW


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

LS: Fair enough that is certainly your right. I have trickled oxalic for years and have been impressed with its effectiveness. I have never sublimated OA in my hives. My research has shown it to be a bit time consuming to do on a large scale and appears quite hazardous to work around without appropriate breathing apparatus. FWIW I have yet to read any research (and it has been extensively studied) suggesting that any hive products are in any way tainted. I tend to agree with those who ask "what the heck happens to all those crystals and how can bees survive them". I don't pretend to understand it, I just accept it.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

> Those of you that are knowledgeable about such things may discard the dangers of a long lasting, potentially harmful chemical in your bee hives.


you do realize that OA is found in honey, spinach, etc. It's a natural compound that is pretty much harmless in small quantities. Also, studies done in Europe found that OA vapor does not end up in honey, even when supers are left on the hive.


----------



## Father & Sons Apiary (Sep 4, 2013)

sqkcrk said:


> Ah, so it wasn't Amitraz and OA, it was Fluvalinate and OA. The pesticide which they were fined for was fluvalinate, not OA. I believe that one will find that as far as the USDA/EPA is concerned OA is not recognized by those Agencies as a pesticide. So I believe.


Does mixing Fluvalinate and OA work?


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Father & Sons Apiary said:


> Does mixing Fluvalinate and OA work?


Interesting question. 

Also, why would Adee mix Fluvalinate and OA when OA works so well by itself? Were the delivery methods of OA not well developed/known back then?


----------



## Jim 134 (Dec 1, 2007)

Daniel Y said:


> You might be correct if air movement was the only thing that caused the disbursement of the OA. But it is not. Now this is going to get complicated.
> 
> There are actually sever things that cause movement of a particle. or I will simply call it dust. In this case OA dust.
> 
> ...


Your state is very true if the bees did not try to ventilate the hive. I do know every time I put smoke (etc.) into a hive the bee's are trying to ventilated out.





BEE HAPPY Jim 134


----------



## Jim 134 (Dec 1, 2007)

In my humble opinion it really doesn't matter what chemical Abee Honey Farms got caught with it was Off label use.



BEE HAPPY Jim 134


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

OA works most effectively in a broodless colony, repetitive treatments are really not practical for large operations. Fluvalinate, on the other hand, is (or perhaps I should say was) effective for a much longer time frame. 
Given the fact OA had been in use in Europe for quite a while I assume some beekeepers were far more advanced in their understanding and use of it here in the US than others. I never heard much about it until the early 2000's. Can't speak for others.


----------



## jrhoto (Mar 2, 2009)

Isn't it just simpler and safer to go by the rules and not have to second guess what should have been done?


www.poorvalleybeefarm.com


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Jim 134 said:


> In my humble opinion it really doesn't matter what chemical Abee Honey Farms got caught with it was Off label use.


That is not unreasonable, and I am sure there are many others who share that view.

I am curious - What steps do you use to control varroa? Do you treat with something? Are you treatment free? What, if any, are your yearly losses due to varroa? On average, how much honey do you get per hive each year? How long have you been using your chosen method(s), and how long did it take to achieve success? If you have found something that works well, I would like to know about it.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

jrhoto said:


> Isn't it just simpler and safer to go by the rules and not have to second guess what should have been done?


What if following the "rules" means you experience huge losses to varroa each year, to the point of almost being wiped out? Would you really choose to ignore a simple treatment that has proven itself safe and effective after many years of use in Europe?


----------



## jrhoto (Mar 2, 2009)

I treat very little and i'am not trying to be vague.I check drone cells for varroa on a regular basis if the varroa count is low i allow the bees to progress naturally.If i see a lot of varroa i treat.I think and this is only my opinion that we face a far greater challange in noesma and bees being stressed due to poor nutrition and a lack of knowledge on the beekeepers part myself included.

www.poorvalleybeefarm.com


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

jrhoto said:


> Isn't it just simpler and safer to go by the rules and not have to second guess what should have been done?
> 
> 
> www.poorvalleybeefarm.com


Shouldn't farmers be able to use what ever they find to be effective when dealing w/ a problem as long as what they use and how they use what they wish to does not pose a risk to themselves, their livestock, their customers, or the general public?

OA has been found to be effective and safe and safe to use. We don't need someone telling us we can use it.


----------



## jrhoto (Mar 2, 2009)

I agree with you in principal, but all i'am saying just be cautious.



www.poorvalleybeefarm.com


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Shouldn't farmers be able to use what ever they find to be effective when dealing w/ a problem as long as what they use and how they use what they wish to does not pose a risk to themselves, their livestock, their customers, or the general public?


No, I don't want a farmer deciding whether a chemical is dangerous or deciding what the dosage should be or how to use it. I am against GMO's but what was being done by the farmer was worse.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

shinbone said:


> Why do you assume this? Many, if not most, organic compounds break down over time when in the environment. Since the OA treatment must be repeated after 7 days, obviously the OA breaks down and is no longer active relatively quickly.
> 
> Everyone is free to deal with varroa however they want, but it seems to me this beginning assumption is wrong.
> 
> FWIW


Puff, puff, in goes the OA. The fumes at some time, turn into particulate matter. How long does it reside in the hive? I don't know. But, if one comes back with a puff, puff before the residue is gone there will be a build up or accumulation of OA particles. That being said, I am not presuming how anyone else should treat their hives. If the OA particles are gone between applications this is a moot point.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Jim 134 said:


> In my humble opinion it really doesn't matter what chemical Abee Honey Farms got caught with it was Off label use.
> BEE HAPPY Jim 134


The Adee case was very public, mainly because of the "shop towel" Fluvalinate use. The OA detected in the hives was a side issue but not the focus of the original investigation. 

I don't know the answer to this, but perhaps you do. Have there been "any" other cases in the US where beekeepers have been fined for using OA, by itself?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

lazy shooter said:


> Puff, puff, in goes the OA. The fumes at some time, turn into particulate matter. How long does it reside in the hive? I don't know. But, if one comes back with a puff, puff before the residue is gone there will be a build up or accumulation of OA particles. That being said, I am not presuming how anyone else should treat their hives. If the OA particles are gone between applications this is a moot point.


Puff, puff? Maybe you don't know or understand how OA is used and applied in beehives?


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

From the Swiss Department of Agriculture: (who have studied this for a while).

Oxalic acid is extremely effective for the control of Varroa in brood free bee colonies. When applied properly, the three forms of application, spraying, trickling and vaporizing, have an efficacy of more than 95 %. _*A three-year study showed that the natural content of oxalic acid in spring honey is not increased. Thus, no residue problems are to be expected.*_ The three treatments have shown a good bee tolerability and thus do not significantly differ in this respect from the untreated control.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

shinbone said:


> Interesting question.
> 
> Also, why would Adee mix Fluvalinate and OA when OA works so well by itself? Were the delivery methods of OA not well developed/known back then?


Who knows what they were thinking, but using more than one treatment in rotation could help to prevent aquired immunity to any single treatment.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Here is the Swiss site that appears to be the source of _snl's _quote in post #87 above:
http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/imkerei/00316/00329/02081/index.html?lang=en

If you are interested, there are related documents there available for download.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Jim 134 said:


> In my humble opinion it really doesn't matter what chemical Abee Honey Farms got caught with it was Off label use.
> 
> 
> 
> BEE HAPPY Jim 134


I applaud your faith in our lawmakers and the purity of their motives. You sir are clearly a pillar of the flock. Community, i mean community. Pillar of the community.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

OK look, let's think about this. We all think that we know that use of Oxalic acid in bee hives is against EPA regulations - and it almost certainly is. 

So how come the agency is silent about it so far - so far as I know that is? 

Maybe it is because it being the Environmental Protection Agency it's lousy with people who are concerned with *protecting the environment* - and maybe with protecting people in the environment as well. 

Since there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the use of OA harms the environment, and so far hasn't harmed any people either - maybe they just don't care. Maybe they have better things to do. More important things than harassing some beekeepers who are using a relatively benign substance instead of Coumaphos or Fluvalinate which are not all that benign - in a way which is well established as being effective therapy for a serious problem. 

Maybe they just aren't paying attention, but I choose to think that they ARE aware of it, and that they are intentionally giving us a pass because it's the right thing to do. 

Imagine that - a government agency doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do and because it makes perfect sense. Boggles the mind doesn't it?


----------



## beekuk (Dec 31, 2008)

> Some information on the risks of oxalic acid sublimation, and the health of the beekeeper.
> 
> ...................
> 
> ...


..............................................


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

snl and bekuk - please don't confuse people by citing facts.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

shinbone said:


> snl and bekuk - please don't confuse people by citing facts.


Haven't you noticed that can't be done?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

I am not _promoting _use of oxalic acid (I have never used it), but if you would like to read more about varroa control options from a _governmental _agency, see this site:

http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/imkerei/00316/00329/02081/index.html?lang=en
The link is to the Swiss government version of our Department of Agriculture, and is available in 4 languages, including English. There are comments, and links to papers of a variety of varroa control techniques, including using oxalic acid vaporization method, and using OA dribble method.


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

Perhaps the answer to the Adee Honey prosecution was not concern with OA, but mostly focused on the bulk fluvalinate and the DIY application method. The OA seems about as important in this situation as the specific brand of paper towel - who makes _blue_ ones? They must have those that are sold as shop towels, not kitchen ones.

Some years ago I was certified pesticide applicator. IIRC correctly that permitted me to obtain, possess and apply classes of chemicals that were otherwise restricted fom sale to non-certified applicators. And it committed me to using all registered chemicals ONLY in the manner in which they were approved on the crops for which they were approved (with correct timing, dosage and restricted re-entry details included). End of story.

EDITED to make a correction:

As SNL pointed out below OA is a registered pesticide - and apparently has been since the 1950s. I've removed my text so as not to add more confusion. I apologize for the wrong information.

Where that leaves us, I don't know. 


One process question that has arisen from reading all this: I got the impression from Randy Oliver's reports of his _experimental_ use of OAV in the winter that it was only safe as one-shot-per-year treatment when done at this season. Am I mistaken or mis-remembering this? I do understand that it only appears to effect phoretic mites so during the brood season multiple treatments might be needed to successfully deal with flushes of mites emerging from the protection of the cells. But where I am (northern NY) I expect that my brood production is at, or near, its annual nadir, so all the mites would be phoretic right now. In theory, an excellent time to smack 'em back - if that was the only consideration.

Enj.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

enjambres said:


> However, wood bleach procured from True Value or Wally-World, is not a registered pesticide. It's available to anyone, for any darn use they choose. They could eat it for breakfast on their Cheerios, if they had a mind to.
> 
> And OA is not, as far as I can see, listed as a prohibited thing to use on hives, any more than it is prohibited from being sprinkled on Cheerios. It is not BANNED as, say, DDT is.


Unfortunately, OA is a registered pesticide in the US and as such is not approved (granted exemption) for use in beehives as a PESTICIDE...... No matter that most of the rest of the world uses it as such.

When there is brood in the hive, 3 successive vaporization treatments 10 days apart is recommended.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Here is the EPA document that supports _snl_'s comment about oxalic acid being a _registered _pesticide:

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/4070fact.pdf


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

snl said:


> OA is a registered pesticide in the US and as such is not approved (granted exemption) for use in beehives as a PESTICIDE......


I just read the EPA document. There is no mention of beehives in the report. OA is registered as a disinfectant to control bacteria and germs. If your intended use is to sanitize the hive interior, would that be an approved use?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

As the linked EPA document notes, oxalic acid also has non-pesticide uses, and can be used to bleach wood. So you could bleach wooden frames, if you felt that it was important to have bleached frames in your hive. 







OK folks - before someone upbraids me for being _obtuse _- I do understand that probably was not what the rulemakers _intended _when they wrote the document. :lookout: But the date on the EPA document is *1992*. Surely, if they were _really _concerned about OA in hives, that document would be many times longer, and more recently updated, don't you think?


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Q-tips are more dangerous than Oxalic Acid. 

It clearly states on the package "Do not insert into ears". Yet how are they used the high majority of the time? In the ears, because they work.

It says nowhere on OA not to use them in beehives. Europe, the same place that has banned neonics for the next 2 years because of how uber careful they are around anything that could hurt bees has given their full endorsement to the use of this product. For those who want to use it, use it because it works.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

OA seems to me like one of the more benign treatments available to control mites. I doubt it has any evil effect on hive products-- as pointed out upthread, there's quite a bit of it in spinach.

But what I worry about is its effects on other essential organisms in the colony ecosystem. It's evidently strong enough to kill mites, so it seems at least possible that it has an effect on, for example, gut microflora. I read a piece in the new American Bee Journal about a Swedish research project that has led to a kind of probiotic solution to replace the lactic acid bacteria in the bee gut-- presumably because the various treatments used by beekeepers have depleted the variety and scale of these bacteria-- an effect also verified by rigorous research. Supposedly this probiotic treatment has successfully defeated infections of EFB and AFB, and shown encouraging results with colonies infected with both varieties of Nosema. I can't help but wonder if maybe this sort of thing has contributed to higher than "normal" losses reported by those who treat their bees. It doesn't do much good to save the colony from varroa, if at the same time, you make it easier prey for some disease like Nosema.

I'm just not a believer in free lunch, so I have to assume that anything that kills a bug in a box full of bugs has some unfortunate side effects. Of course, I'm just a hobbyist, and to me, it's not a matter of making a living, so I'm free to see if I can learn to be a good enough beekeeper (or lucky enough) to forego varroa treatments. If I weren't a dabbler, I'd probably do whatever it took to keep my bees alive at a profitable level. OA is the least offensive solution, so far as I can tell.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

OA is registered as a sanitizer, killing germs and bacteria in industrial applications. In the hive I'm sure it kills the "good" bacteria as well. No different than antibiotics we take for illnesses. They are effective, but they take out the good bacteria with the bad. 

Everything in moderation. Even good things can be harmful if overused.


----------



## beekuk (Dec 31, 2008)

Being as honey has anti bacterial,microbial,viral, properties, like Hydrogen peroxide, i wonder if that upsets the microflora within the colony, and bees guts, things like that manuka honey, heather honey, ect.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

It is not just the chemical it is how it is used and what the dosage should be and how to control it. As it stands now there is no control of the dosage. Beekeepers saying you can double the dosage and it doesn't matter. Really?


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

beekuk said:


> Being as honey has anti bacterial,microbial,viral, properties, like Hydrogen peroxide, i wonder if that upsets the microflora within the colony, and bees guts, things like that manuka honey, heather honey, ect.


I think evolution implies that honey does not adversely affect the gut microflora, since honey is the food used by bees in dearths and in wintering. Surely bees would not have evolved to store and subsist on a food that is less than ideal. It's one reason why I find it difficult to believe that sugar syrup is better for bees than honey, which I have heard asserted by some.


----------



## sjj (Jan 2, 2007)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Here is the Swiss site that appears to be the source of _snl's _quote in post #87 above:
> http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/imkerei/00316/00329/02081/index.html?lang=en
> 
> If you are interested, there are related documents there available for download.


The Swiss are actively promoting the acidic beekeeping for about 13 years. 
They have EFB problems now. 
It is not new at all.
This coincidence between OA and foul brood is known from Russia, too. They have studied and used acids: formic and oxalic, against Varroa, on a large scale, since late 1970s. 

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/are-you-too-acidic-symptoms.html


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Sjj - that's a big statement. Got any evidence to back it up? Your link led to nothing.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

I followed the link that was provided in post #107. And found this list of signs of _acidification_. Check out item number 29.  :lookout:


> *Do you exhibit signs of acidification?*
> Find out with this checklist of 30 symptoms.
> 
> 1. Lack of energy, constant fatigue, loss of physical tone and psychic drive, sensation of heaviness in the limbs, feelings of inability to cope.
> ...


Is there a cure for "hives"? :scratch: What if I want _*more *_hives? :lpf:

:ws:


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Is there a cure for "hives"?


Mites


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Well, that means that through _*Beesource collaborative effort*_,  we now have a medical breakthrough, and an answer to the question posed by this thread, "What are varroa good for?"

:lpf: :lookout:


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

On the issue of treating effects everything in the hive. Both good and bad. This is true. What I have not seen yet is how that ecology has already been effected due to simply by the methods we keep bees.

An overall example. disease and plagues was not really that well known until man started building cities and living in congested conditions. Some of the worst diseases in history where the result of sanitation issues due to congestion. A simple explanation of what happens is that congested conditions facilitate an explosion in the organisms that transfer diseases. whether that is a rat or a mite or simply a virus. congested conditions provide the superhighway for those illnesses to travel on.

You cannot contend with disease in congested conditions the same as you would in natural ones. death due to congestion is a self balancing condition in nature. Overpopulate and individuals starve. dead bodies provide fertile grounds for those very organisms that spread disease. Rotting corpses alone become a source for further deaths. A tremendous amount of effort (treating) goes into making the conditions of our cities inhabitable. I beleive tehvery same situation is true for the Bee Colony. Organisms that in a natural ecology woudl be beneficial. Are nearly worthless in the congested highly stressful conditions of an apiary.

I suspect you do as much damage to the internal organisms of a colony due to inspections as you do by treating. Treating is necessary directly due to these organism being inadequate. So are you harming them most definitely. does it matter? most likely not. they are not good enough anyway. That is why it is necessary to find something that is better. Look at it as something more like the sewage system. garbage collection and disposal and water treatment of the beehive.

This does not even touch on the additional stresses and disadvantages the Honeybee suffers due to environmental contamination or lack of adequate food sources.

I suspect the little bugs in the gut of a bee where overwhelmed long long ago.

Ants rats, birds and other scavengers will dispose of dead bodies in short order. but they will not do it when there are heaps of them to be consumed. Even if they did. you would not want it done that way. Once they run out of the dead they will turn their attention to the living.

To turn your attention and efforts toward fostering these beneficial organisms. I consider spending your time and money on the least effective results you can. And once you get them all built up. chances are almost certain they will become the very thing that kills your bees.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Radar has a good point. Of course humans are not bugs, But a natural _BALANCE _within every living (and the hive) is what leads to good health. Which includes PH and hormone levels.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Daniel Y - I don't understand what you said in Post #112. Could you give a one sentence summary?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Here you go ....



> Both good and bad.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

#13 - Loose teeth

Maybe that is the mechanism through which OA kills mites -the mite's get loose teeth and then they can't bite their way into the bee to get the hemolymph.


eureka


----------



## Harvey Wray (Nov 14, 2009)

To get FDA aproval on a substance it takes a lot of money. If a big company could get a patten on oxlic acid then we would proably get approval. As long as we can buy it in a big box store down the street it will never happen.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Harvey Wray said:


> If a big company could get a patten on oxlic acid then we would proably get approval.


A patent? How many beekeeping associations are there? If this was so important to the beekeeping community then these associations could get approval. All it takes is scientific testing, record keeping, filing and paperwork and the funds to do such activities. Once approved every beekeeper could follow the procedures that are approved. So why haven't the beekeeping associations done it already? Why?


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Acebird said:


> All it takes is scientific testing, record keeping, filing and paperwork and the funds to do such activities.


That's it? Piece of cake.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Well it is really. I should of said it takes time also. So how long have these associations been around doing nothing?


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Excluding the enormous costs for scientific testing, record keeping, and paperwork ... the EPA registration fee alone could be over $500,000. I don't know about other associations, but we have a rough time just saving enough for our winter banquet. Our state has been forced to cut back on county inspectors due to funding shortfalls. Where would the money come from for a new product registration and associated costs?


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Acebird said:


> All it takes is scientific testing, record keeping, filing and paperwork and the funds to do such activities.


That's right. All it takes is time, money and hard work with no financial reward for whoever takes on the task. Why would anyone think that is an obstacle . . .

sheesh


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Mike is not joking about that fee, except it is now $597,693.00 just for the "registration service fee". See category 020 (mentions beehives specifically) at this link:

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/fees/pria-interpretations.pdf

Of course, that is just the registration fee. No doubt you will also need an _army _of lawyers to prepare the documents.

:ws:

That is in addition to the required actual research.


:bus

No word on how many _under-the-table payoffs_ will be required.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

Mike Gillmore said:


> the EPA registration fee alone could be over $500,000.


maybe someone could find out how to get a registration and label pulled?? If there was no label, you wouldn't bee in violation of it, might not still be legal, but more legal

I don't imagine anyone is paying the maintenance fees to keep the label current, the one time I looked at it, it said it was a red label, never found out what that meant.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Mike Gillmore said:


> Where would the money come from for a new product registration and associated costs?



Who wants it? Beekeepers. Who pays? Beekeepers. Now, how many beekeepers want it?


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

I'm thinking the cheapest way is to just have the label of "pesticide" removed from OA.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Who wants it? Beekeepers. Who pays? Beekeepers.


This is correct.

But this supports the original point, which is that it is registration costs coupled with the non-existent profit potential prevent OA from being registered for use in a hive, not that it is ineffective or harmful.

In other words, the registrant would lose money no matter how many beekeepers would use OA. Thus, registration is never gonna happen for purely business reasons.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

shinbone said:


> Thus, registration is never gonna happen for purely business reasons.


Of course not. So the beekeeper that gets caught using illegal substances will pay fines. Those selling the illegal substances and pariphernalia usually get fined more.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

There are *NO *"illegal substances" involved here. There is only the possible _off-label_ use of a registered pesticide. The off-label *use *is a violation of law.

Those selling the pesticide, and anyone selling any kind of device, have done nothing illegal.


:gh:


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Of course not. So the beekeeper that gets caught using illegal substances will pay fines. Those selling the illegal substances and pariphernalia usually get fined more.


And thus we have the Anti-Treater waving around the threat of government sanctions to advance his personal agenda of scaring the uninitiated away from using a process successfully used in Europe for years and which the U.S. gov't hasn't paid attention to for 20 years if ever.

IMHO, beeks should use whatever methods they want. Hopefully, someday, some treatment-free people will find a method that works for everyone and we can leave the chemicals behind, so more power to the non-treaters.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Acebird said:


> So the beekeeper that gets caught using illegal substances will pay fines. Those selling the illegal substances and pariphernalia usually get fined more.


Yes & no. Both OA & paraphernalia (vaporizers) are legal. It is USE of them that determines legality. Both firearms and bullets are legal. You put them in a gun and kill someone........


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> There are *NO *"illegal substances" involved here. There is only the possible _off-label_ use of a registered pesticide. The off-label *use *is a violation of law. Those selling the pesticide, and anyone selling any kind of device, have done nothing illegal.[ /QUOTE]
> 
> Absolutely correct. Ace is now a lawyer!


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

A couple months ago while applying some sugar syrup on some hives in a bee yard with a garden sprayer, a mysterious truck, with out of state plates, slowly drove past watching me closely, it's occupants dressed in blaze orange. My fellow workers assumed it was hunters. I knew better. Theses were most likely Feds videotaping my activities, assuming there was a few ounces of oxalic acid mixed into the syrup. I assume they returned later looking for some residue. Still waiting for that inevitable knock on the door or official letter. this is driving me crazy. :ws:


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

snl said:


> Yes & no. Both OA & paraphernalia (vaporizers) are legal. It is USE of them that determines legality. Both firearms and bullets are legal. You put them in a gun and kill someone........


The above brings to mind a pal of mine who had a neighbor that started raising fighting ****s, those male chicks that fight to the death. They were a nuisance to my pal as they crowed every morning before day light. He reported his neighbor to the local sheriff, who told him " it's not against the law to own fighting ****s, it's just against the law to fight them." There must be a lot of like instances in our somewhat free society.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> mysterious truck, with out of state plates ...

 The Feds have their _own _license plates ...


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> > mysterious truck, with out of state plates ...
> 
> The Feds have their _own _license plates ...



Not when the vehicle has been deployed by a black helicopter and leaves a sky trail.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Sounds like the child detection agency.


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

Those who trust in the Government would be wise to look at the American Indian, Also if one considers the ruling by the IRS any beekeeper must make a profit for 3 of 5 years to claim your beekeeping expenditure against your income if you do not do so it is claimed to be a hobby. So according to those Rules the government and the EPA (employment prevention agency) must also be a hobby.
Johno


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> > mysterious truck, with out of state plates ...
> 
> The Feds have their _own _license plates ...


Not necessarily.


----------



## acbz (Sep 8, 2009)

jim lyon said:


> I knew better. Theses were most likely Feds videotaping my activities, assuming there was a few ounces of oxalic acid mixed into the syrup. I assume they returned later looking for some residue. Still waiting for that inevitable knock on the door or official letter. this is driving me crazy. :ws:


+1 :lpf:


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

From acbz.............Still waiting for that inevitable knock on the door...

Knock, Knock!!!


----------



## Dave1958 (Mar 25, 2013)

Off label usage of meds is how we got Mixodil(hair regrowth drug), Viagra, and Fen-Phen( weight loss combo). It also allows physicians to recommend such as low dose aspirin in heart disease. Not all of this is good, some is pick your worse case and judge


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

shinbone said:


> This is correct.
> 
> But this supports the original point, which is that it is registration costs coupled with the non-existent profit potential prevent OA from being registered for use in a hive, not that it is ineffective or harmful.
> 
> In other words, the registrant would lose money no matter how many beekeepers would use OA. Thus, registration is never gonna happen for purely business reasons.


You fail to see any reason to get it registered other than profit potential. and that is hardly the only motivation possible. I know of one group that wanted to send items such as jars of honey to the troops overseas. and they wanted to do it on a non profit tax exempt basis. so they as a group just like this managed to file for and receive that status. Motivation. They wanted it. Not one person has made one dime of profit in 8 years of this program. none ever will. profit never got discussed.

I am certain that if you have ever attempted to organize such a not for profit motivated action that your results where failure. I suspect that has more to do wit your limited idea on why people could be motivated than that it will not work. You fulfill your own expectations in other words. If you never have than your thinking is pure speculation based upon limited understanding of just what people will do and why.

The profit is not in sales. it is in reduced cost and better management of what is already being done. SO rather than call it profit I will call it benefit. and getting OA registered as an approves pesticide in beehives in in the interest of those that will benefit. If they want it bad enough, it will happen. It is not the first thing by far a beekeeper wold be asked to pay for. they paid for equipment. they paid for bees. hell they will pay for the bottle to stuff their honey in. Paying for what they want is nothing new. 

Now asking them to pay to register a product that they are already using anyway. how much is a beekeeper willing to pay to stay legal? Now there I agree. probably not much.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Of course not. So the beekeeper that gets caught using illegal substances will pay fines. Those selling the illegal substances and pariphernalia usually get fined more.


Actually this is not so as long as they do not label it for that use. That is why not labeling does nothing for the beekeeper. Hardware stores sell tons of things that are actually illegal to use in the manner they are commonly used. Plumbing fittings would be one of the most common. The hardware store is not responsible for how it is used. The seller of OA is also not responsible for how it is used. Did you know it is actually illegal according to UBC to use window tile and bath caulk on the exterior of a house? Did you know it is illegal to install just a standard piece of pipe on a hot water heater? You will have no problem buying it. you will not have a problem buying it if you tell the store that is what you intend to use it for. Did you know it is illegal to even repair your hot water heater without also installing a $150 pressure relief tank? The hardware store is not going to tell you about it. It is not there job for you to know the law regarding your actions. that is your burden. Otherwise I can just go rob banks and say it is not illegal because the bank did not tell me I couldn't.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Daniel Y:

As for oxalic acid, I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. That is why I don't use it. I am into my third year of beekeeping, and the only thing I have introduced into my hives is sugar syrup and dry sugar via the mountain camp method.

I have a very weak education in organic chemistry, and oxalic acid and the resulting residue that it leaves in the hive are beyond my scope. I've read some info on the internet, but what I have read leaves me undecided on its long range effects on the hive. For example, does oxalic acid kill beneficial organisms?


----------



## WWW (Feb 6, 2011)

lazy shooter said:


> I've read some info on the internet, but what I have read leaves me undecided on its long range effects on the hive. For example, does oxalic acid kill beneficial organisms?


I would think that OA ingested when the dribble method is used could actually kill beneficial organisms in the gut because it is mixed with a sugar syrup and ingested by the bee, this would be a logical deduction. With the vaporizing method the delivery method differs since the OA is administered by vapor into the hive. So does the OA crystals end up in the bees gut? I don't know, and have never heard anyone on this forum show proof that it does, so this leads me to the next question, does OA vapor kill beneficial organisms in the hive chamber? And does these organisms exist in the hive chamber, if so what is the purpose? It would seem logical to me that the bees by propalizing and cleaning the inside of the hive are striving for a clean environment. 

Since getting back into beekeeping 5 years ago I have used OA vapor to control the Varroa mite and have seen no adverse affects on my hives, in fact they are thriving and I have not lost a single over wintered hive.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>So does the OA crystals end up in the bees gut? I don't know, and have never heard anyone on this forum show proof that it does

Agreed. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't affect what is in their gut. Certainly I would expect vaporizing to have less impact than dribbling does.

> so this leads me to the next question, does OA vapor kill beneficial organisms in the hive chamber?

I think that is a given.

> And does these organisms exist in the hive chamber, if so what is the purpose?

That we know of, there are many that are involved in the fermentation of the pollen into bee bread, which is an essential process to being able to feed brood.

> It would seem logical to me that the bees by propalizing and cleaning the inside of the hive are striving for a clean environment. 

To some degree, yes, but they are also innoculating the pollen and then fermenting it.


----------



## WWW (Feb 6, 2011)

Thanks for the input Michael, I suppose each beekeeper needs to decide for themselves as to how they want to deal with the Varroa mite, I do believe that there are areas where the mite is easier to deal with, I certainly don't live in one of them. OAV does work well for me and from what I can see it has no negative impact on my hives so I will continue to use it.


----------

