SUMAC - Page 3
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 108

Thread: SUMAC

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,182

    Post

    Iddee,

    I agree with you that there are many natural remedies, and these known as 'soft pesticides' and should certainly have preference over hard pesticides when ever possible.

    But according to the EPA’s definition of pesticides.

    http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/securty.htm
    “Broadly defined, a pesticide is any agent used to kill or control undesired insects, weeds, rodents, fungi, bacteria, or other organisms.”


    --PS.Dick was referring to mispelling gentle, and spelling it gentile, or non-jewish.

    LOL, [img]smile.gif[/img]
    All’s I can say is thank Gosh the spell check didn’t also add an “i” in there.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Inver Grove, MN
    Posts
    1,461

    Post

    >>"--Next you mentioned eating sumac will cause vomiting."

    >"That was a quote from the MSDS, and firmly rooted in FACT."

    I find it unlikely that you found an MSDS for sumac. This is one of the problems caused by the MSDS system. People use a certain MSDS and extrapolate the data to other materials. Sumac may contain a certain compound, but sumac is NOT that compound.

    We need to be careful that we don't give anyone the opportunity to say that the MSDS for oxalic acid shows that it can cause burns and tissue damage, therefore honey, which contains traces of oxalic acid, causes burns and tissue damage.
    Linux - World domination through world cooperation

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,182

    Post

    Hillside wrote:
    --I find it unlikely that you found an MSDS for sumac. This is one of the problems caused by the MSDS system. People use a certain MSDS and extrapolate the data to other materials. Sumac may contain a certain compound, but sumac is NOT that compound.

    I agree Hillside!!
    But I did not say that!!!!!
    People need to be more careful when quoting what other people say because that is not what I said!!

    I SAID:
    ---*
    “Its The chemical, 1-2-3 benezenetriol, also known as pyrogallol, is the ingredient in sumac seeds that kills mites.,,,”

    “Pyrogallol can be absorbed into the body by inhalation, ingestion or through the skin. It is toxic and an eye, skin and respiratory tract irritant and prolonged skin contact may cause dermatitis. Inhalation can cause coughing, shortness of breath, nausea and faintness. Ingestion can cause vomiting,,,,”
    ---*

    In my training as a licensed pesticide applicator I am not worried about the carrier of the pesticide (that being the sumac seeds in this case), “I am ONLY CONCERNED WITH THE ACTIVE INGREEDIENT“ as far as the pesticidal qualities are concerned. All pesticides contain both "active" and "inert" ingredients. In most PESTICIDES, the actual active ingredient is usually comprised of less than 5% and in many cases less than 1% of the total!

    So when one uses Sumac as a pesticide, and if one were to create a label for its use. The active ingredient which is found in Sumac would be listed on the label as 1-2-3 benezenetriol, also known as pyrogallol. Now when discussing the use of Sumac as a pesticide, you are ONLY referring to the active ingredient pyrogallol which is in this case inseparable from the name Sumac. It’s the pyrogallol contained in the Sumac that is the active ingredient, and the rest of the sumac itself is the ‘inert ingredient’.


    --We need to be careful that we don't give anyone the opportunity to say that the MSDS for oxalic acid shows that it can cause burns and tissue damage, therefore honey, which contains traces of oxalic acid, causes burns and tissue damage.

    This is true, but what you are referring to here would be found in the MDSD Section VI: Health Hazard Data. Some levels are well below the exposure limits and not harmful as higher exposures may be.

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenville, TX, USA
    Posts
    4,613

    Post

    WHICH sumac seeds. See my post. There are over 250 species of this plant.

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,182

    Post

    Hi Ross,

    The Staghorn Sumac is the species we are talking about.

    Or at least I am. [img]smile.gif[/img]

    http://www.oplin.org/tree/fact%20pag..._staghorn.html

    The flowers dry and turn dark red.
    That they remain clumped together when dry seems to make it an attractable choice for fuel for some beekeepers.

    Of course, cow dung remains clumped together and is a well known source of fuel. [img]smile.gif[/img]

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,647

    Post

    >it is certainly different when one knowingly chooses a fuel that was researched and found to have ‘KNOWN PESTICIDAL QUALITIES’ as compared to one that chooses a fuel that would not have a KNOWN pesticidal side affect.

    So, beekeeper "A" knows that smoking bees with sumac is against the law because he read some posts by a licenced pesticide applicator on an internet chat group. Beekeeper "A" is a criminal.

    But, beekeeper "B" does not use the internet and picks up some sumac that's nearby to smoke his bees. Some mites are killed when beekeeper "B" smokes his hive. Now he is a criminal, because he didn't do a chemical analysis of sumac before using it?

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,182

    Post

    Dick,

    Why would you smoke your hives with a pesticide when there are many alternative choices?

    For beekeeper “A”

    “,,,IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE UNREGISTERED MATERIALS IN HONEY BEE COLONIES. USE ONLY REGISTERED MATERIALS AND FOLLOW LABEL DIRECTION AT ALL TIMES”

    MID-ATLANTIC APICULTURE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CONSORTIUM
    http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/Feb2000_newsletter.html

    For beekeeper “B”

    “,,,IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE UNREGISTERED MATERIALS IN HONEY BEE COLONIES. USE ONLY REGISTERED MATERIALS AND FOLLOW LABEL DIRECTION AT ALL TIMES”

    MID-ATLANTIC APICULTURE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CONSORTIUM
    http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/Feb2000_newsletter.html

    But, beekeeper “A” could also be held liable for damages should harm be caused to someone as a result of the use of an unregistered pesticide.

    Have a nice day! [img]smile.gif[/img]

    [size="1"][ July 01, 2006, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ][/size]

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    53,768

    Post

    >This was to illustrate the absurdity when someone claims to use a fuel that has ’known pesticidal qualities’ and pretends be using it only for it’s smoke quality.

    I've never used it for it's 'known pesticidal qualities'. I've only used sumac when it was near the hives and I needed fuel for the smoker. I prefer burlap, but I often run out and grab what is handy. Sumac is a very effective fuel. Lights easily, stays lit, burns a long time and calms the bees. The only smoke I ever tried to use to kill mites is tobacco and I wasn't impressed with it's ill effects on the bees.

    If pines grew in any numbers near the hive, I'd use pine needles. I'm sure smoke from them dislodges mites as well, but that still would not be my motivation.

    To assume someone using any particular smoke is trying to kill mites is a big assumption. I've known people who were using sumac heads as smoker fuel 30 years ago before anyone knew what a Varroa was.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 42y 40h 39yTF

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,647

    Post

    For beekeeper “B”
    “,,,IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE UNREGISTERED MATERIALS IN HONEY BEE COLONIES. USE ONLY REGISTERED MATERIALS AND FOLLOW LABEL DIRECTION AT ALL TIMES”

    MID-ATLANTIC APICULTURE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CONSORTIUM
    http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/Feb2000_newsletter.html
    where would the hapless beekeeper "B" find the label directions for use of sumac?

    [size="1"][ July 01, 2006, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ][/size]

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,182

    Post

    Thanks Dick, This illustrates my point perfectly, there is no way to know what dosage of sumac is required or what dosage can do harm to the bees.

    Hapless beekeeper "B" will not find any label directions because it is illegal for use as a pesticide in honeybee colonies. [img]smile.gif[/img]

  12. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,182

    Post

    Sorry Mike, I should have put a smiley face besides my comment to you because I was only kidding.

    I know that you would NEVER treat your own bees with anything that was a known pesticide. And furthermore, I know that you would always recommend approved treatments over that of unregistered treatments, and never knowingly promote a smoke fuel that has known bi-directional pesticidal qualities to it that are not approved for use by the EPA and allowed under law in your home state.

    [size="1"][ July 01, 2006, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ][/size]

  13. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Greensboro, N.C.
    Posts
    5,034

    Post

    OK, what may I use to make smoke for my bees legally? What material is registered with the epa as a smoke producer for bee hives, and where can I get it and the label for it?

    Until I find out, I will just have to keep breaking the law, I guess. I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, so whatever I use will still be illegal if the great, magnificient, all mighty,all knowing epa hasn't put it's stamp of approval on it.

  14. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,647

    Post

    >Hapless beekeeper "B" will not find any label directions because it is illegal for use as a pesticide in honeybee colonies.

    Beekeeper "B" is not using it as a pesticide. He's dumber than a fence post. He is merely smoking his bees. So what is the poor chap to do?

  15. #54
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Whitefield, Maine USA
    Posts
    6,584

    Post

    I'm going to forsake the moral high ground here and state for the record that I want no part of the EPA or anything they'd register for and recommend for use in a bee hive- I'm sure it's nothing I'd want to store in my garage let alone apply to my bees.

    The EPA is no friend of mine. I don't trust them and I don't trust their motives so quoting EPA boilerplate won't bring me warm fuzzies nor do their laws, regulations, recommendations, and oversight bring me any comfort. These are the people that brought us fluvalinate and cumophos, resistant varroa mites, and crappy queens. These are the people that pulled the teeth out of the Bee Precautionary Labeling law for pesticides hazardous to honey bees making it easier for pesticide manufacturers to sell their products and harder for beekeepers to obtain justice when their honeybees are killed due to thoughtless pesticide application.

    I also choose not to buy into the idea that I'd be a criminal were I to choose to put sumac flowers in my smoker or powdered sugar into my hives to control varroa mites simply because these "treatments" haven't had holy water sprinkled on them by the EPA. I also choose to interpret MAAREC's recommendations in the spirit in which I believe they were intended- not to obfuscate and confuse beekeepers, but to provide sensible guidance in the care of honey bees and prevent the misuse of registered products for other than their intended purpose.

    I realize that Joe, being a licensed pesticide applicator, is held to a higher standard of practice than people who are not trained, licensed, and regulated by the state, and this is as it should be. He should choose to interpret the applicable laws, rules, and recommendations in the strictest sense and apply them in his work because he is a professional, liable for his actions. I may be liable for my actions too, but this does not and will not prevent me from using common sense, thoughtful consideration, and informed concern in the care and maintainance of my honey bees. I am not claiming to be above the law, I am merely exercising my right to interpret the law in the light of my own informed perspective.

    George-
    Dulcius ex asperis

  16. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Inver Grove, MN
    Posts
    1,461

    Post

    >>"Beekeeper "B" is not using it as a pesticide. He's dumber than a fence post."

    I just wish you guys would stop using me as an example.
    Linux - World domination through world cooperation

  17. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,398

    Post

    > [The EPA] are the people that brought us fluvalinate

    No, Wellmark brought us fluvalinate, and
    beekeepers rejoiced when they introduced it.
    It worked.

    > and cumophos,

    Bayer brought us CheckMite (cumophos)

    The EPA is phasing out organophosphates like
    cumophos, and has eliminated their use in most
    of agriculture. Beekeeping is one of the
    areas where the EPA has been begged to allow
    us to continue using it, as some find it
    mission critical. The EPA continues to allow
    Section 18 use, but I doubt if there will ever
    be Section 3 approval for CheckMite, as the EPA
    wants all organophosphates off the market as
    a overt and stated policy goal.

    > resistant varroa mites, and crappy queens.

    While some may say that resistance was
    unavoidable, and only a matter of time, it
    seems strange to me that resistant varroa
    have been a problem in specific areas, but
    has not been a problem at all in my yards,
    even after years of Apistan use. Perhaps
    beekeepers have only themselves to blame
    for the resistance problems.

    > The EPA is no friend of mine.

    So you feel that you only need to follow
    rules and regulations created by those who
    you LIKE? This sort of thinking ends up
    making one believe that black is white, and
    white black, which leads directly to being
    run down at the first crosswalk one encounters.

    > These are the people that pulled the teeth
    > out of the Bee Precautionary Labeling law

    No, don't blame the EPA for the efforts of the
    lobbyists hired by pesticide makers and applicators
    don't blame the EPA for being forced to be more
    "industry friendly" by the current administration.

    There is no need to worry about smoker fuels,
    one may use whatever one pleases. It is well
    known that a wide range of substances can
    increase one's mite drop count, even spraying
    water can generate some impressive numbers.
    This does not imply that smoker smoke needs to
    be registered with anyone, or that any smoker
    fuel has any value as a "pesticide".

    I disagree with our resident licensed pesticide
    applicator. His error seems to be in assuming
    that smoking bees with Sumac (or whatever) with
    the expectation of having any impact on the mite
    population would be considered anything more
    than a delusional belief. Now, if someone
    started marketing something with an "active
    ingredient" of Sumac, THEN the EPA would have a
    say in the matter, and would refuse to approve
    the product without proof that it was more than
    a placebo.

    > IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE UNREGISTERED MATERIALS
    > IN HONEY BEE COLONIES

    No, it is illegal to use unregistered PESTICIDES
    in honey bee colonies. "Materials" such as smoke,
    stainless steel frame rests, plastic queen cages,
    "Honey Bee Healthy" in feed and so on, are all
    clearly not pesticides and are perfectly
    legal to use as the beekeeper sees fit. Any
    resulting contamination of honey would be an
    FDA issue or, more likely, a state food-and-drug
    issue.

    As an aside, the EPA revoked the "registration"
    for Bee-Go and Honey Robber back in 1998, but
    no one seems to care. The products clearly are
    pesticides, and without the revoked EPA
    "exemption from the requirement for a tolerance",
    it becomes a "FDA issue", as the pesticide in
    Bee-Go and Honey Robber is not legal to use in
    any way with food, such as honey.

    Somehow, neither the EPA or the FDA have bothered
    to remind anyone of this, so the products continue
    to be sold to unwitting beekeepers. Beekeeping
    simply is not a large enough user of pesticides
    to be as important as other segments of agriculture.

  18. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenville, TX, USA
    Posts
    4,613

    Post

    I'd like to see a reliable reference that says STAGHORN SUMAC SEEDS contain a significant level of a pesticideal poison. Everything I find says the LEAVES are used to obtain pyrogallol for tanning leather. I would also like to see something on the effects of burning the seed heads. Has anyone analyzed the smoke? How do you know the pyrogallol survives burning?

    I founds one reference that might indicate that we should use the leaves in the smoker ....
    http://www.scrd.net/scrd_new/anglais/fds/a_blkm.htm
    Composition Natural tanning extract obtained from milled Sumac leaves.
    Dangerous ingredients NONE



    3. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

    Under normal use conditions, this product is stable. May give off irritant fumes (SO2, SO3) and organic acids under action of extreme heat. The product is astringent and of bitter taste.

    In case of ingestion in large amount, the product may cause gastric disorders.

    [size="1"][ July 02, 2006, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Ross ][/size]

  19. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,182

    Post

    --,,,,but (resistance)
    has not been a problem at all in my yards,
    even after years of Apistan use. Perhaps
    beekeepers have only themselves to blame
    for the resistance problems.

    Jim,
    Enjoyed your response!
    Depending on what methods you are using to estimate resistance, natural resistance could be playing a part here. Herein lies the problem that beekeepers face is how to determine if a low mite drop test for resistance is due to Apistan resistance or is natural resistance the cause, this could hamper the beekeepers ability to identify resistant colonies.

    --There is no need to worry about smoker fuels,
    one may use whatever one pleases. It is well
    known that a wide range of substances can
    increase one's mite drop count,

    This is true and I totally agree here!
    Kicking a colony will produce a mite drop.
    BUT if you are using a substance for the purpose of killing mites, you are by law using it as a pesticide. A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest. So using substances in your smoker during your routine bee work with the intent of also mitigating the mites would be using it as a pesticide.

    --This does not imply that smoker smoke needs to
    be registered with anyone, or that any smoker
    fuel has any value as a "pesticide".

    This is true!
    BUT if you are using it to kill or mitigate mites, under EPA definition, you are using it as a pesticide. You probably understand as a scientist that it hasn’t been determined the proper dosage for this substance that is lethal to the mites, and what the effects are on the honeybees, using it without this knowledge will probably only facilitate resistance to the agent in the process.

    --I disagree with our resident licensed pesticide
    applicator. His error seems to be in assuming
    that smoking bees with Sumac (or whatever) with
    the expectation of having any impact on the mite
    population would be considered anything more
    than a delusional belief.

    Jim, you are elevating the nastiness. [img]smile.gif[/img]
    It may kill a mite, it may kill hundreds. The error in our resident scientists statement is that he makes absolutely no consideration for method of application, which myself as the trained resident licensed pesticide applicator understand is paramount to insure effectiveness of any pesticide.

    I am however rather astounded that all the previous support for the use of selected fuels for use as pesticide, failed to mention anything about how to apply the pesticide.

    --No, it is illegal to use unregistered PESTICIDES
    in honey bee colonies. "Materials" such as smoke,,,,

    Sorry to cut you off, but the smoke would be illegal if it is used as a pesticide.

    As far as the typo error, have to talk to MAAREC about that. [img]smile.gif[/img]

  20. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,647

    Post

    I seem to remember an article in one of the bee journals.
    There was an article on using on using sumac in one or two of the bee magazines some time back. As I remember the articles reported increased mite fall, more than from other smoke, when sumac was used. Shortly after the articles one of the bee supply companies offered sumac blossoms for sale in their catalog. I think they were only offered for a year and disappeared from their catalog the following year.

    When varroa first appeared, tobacco smoke was suggested as a way to knock mites down. What elese has been suggested? Walnut leaves?

    I'd be very happy to have some find the silver bullet.

  21. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,182

    Post

    Hi Dick,

    While I'm waiting for Jims wrath to befall upon me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

    Remember, when they say ‘knock down’ mites, they mean just that.
    Many of these smoke methods do not kill mites, instead they temporally knock them out and cause them to fall. With tobacco, most varroa will wake up shortly and crawl back onto bees.

    There was allot of stuff that was suggested. I’ve tried tobacco years ago before I regressed and eliminated all treatments. Tobacco, really whacked out the bees and if I recall correctly, many bees flew out disorientated and lost their equilibrium and flew in circles on the ground like a wounded flies do. It knocked the varroa out, and I brought them into the house and watched them recover one by one and crawl away. I never used it again after that due to how sick the honeybees seemed to get.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

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
  •