Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Guatemala
    Posts
    244

    Post

    Hi all!

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

    I mean all compounds, either chemical or organic.

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Evansville, IN, USA
    Posts
    2,837

    Post

    guatebee . . .

    >a formal, official source . . .

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

    Are you looking for something specific?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Perkasie, PA
    Posts
    1,998

    Post

    It depends on the given country.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Guatemala
    Posts
    244

    Post

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

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

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

    It is therefore that I seek updated information.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

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    new, some old and outdated, some now illegal in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

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

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

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

    ...or at least that's what I understood him
    to say... [img]smile.gif[/img]

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

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

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

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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Guatemala
    Posts
    244

    Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

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

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

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

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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Guatemala
    Posts
    244

    Post

    AGREED!!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads