Taktic

[Jim Fischer]

A bunch of posts back, Mike said:

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

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

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

[Barry]

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

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...918&pr=goog-sl

[Kieck]

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

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

[Aspera]

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

[Kieck]

Aspera,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BEES4U]

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

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


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

Regards,
Ernie
Lucas Apiaries

[Barry]

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

And what method are you using for detection?

[Barry]

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

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

[LT]

Anyone have the ratio of canola oil to taktic? Thanks

[BWrangler]

Hi Guys,

Taktic, not again!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
Dennis

[BEES4U]

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


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

The recommended dosage for use on honey bee colonies is

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

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

Amitraz can also be used as a hive fumigant.

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

Note that amitraz can kill bees.

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

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

Regards,
Ernie
Lucas Apiaries

[BEES4U]

Eric Mussen
Entomology Extension
University of California
Davis, CA 95616

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

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

[LSPender]

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

Thanks, Larry Pender

[Trevor Mansell]

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

[Kieck]

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

-BEES4U

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

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

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

Not legally.

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

[BWrangler]

Hi LSPender,

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone know what's happening in Canada with oxalic?

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

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

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

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

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

[Kieck]

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

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

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

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

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

[Bud Dingler]

from randy olivers website

The downside of amitraz is that it is somewhat more toxic to bees than fluvalinate, and shuts down the queen’s egglaying during treatment (Henderson 1998; pers comms). This is not surprising, since Bloomquist (1996) states, “Amidines cause an overstimulation of octopaminergic synapses in insects, resulting in tremors, convulsions, and continuous flight behavior in adult insects. Moreover, these compounds have the ability to cause a true anorexia in insects and also suppress reproduction.”

The upside to amitraz is that it degrades quickly in honey and beeswax (Fries, et al 1998), and therefore leaves virtually no residues (although one of its metabolites, DMF, is quite stable, and is a common contaminant of European honey (Shroeder, et al 2004)). Vesely, et al (2004) analyzed beeswax in the Czech Republic for amitraz and its degradation products. They concluded “these quantities do not present amitraz as hygienic risk for bees and for humans even after 20 years of its systematic application.”

I’ve spent some time trying to find any reason not to reregister amitraz as a varroacide in the U.S. I’m not a big synthetic chemical fan, but I think that amitraz deserves a second look. It works well against the mite, appears slow to promote resistance, doesn’t appear to contaminate honey or wax to any extent, and is relatively nontoxic to humans and bees.

[magnet-man]

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

Found it.
http://randyoliver.com/

[BEES4U]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Regards,
Ernie