SUMAC - Page 5
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 108

Thread: SUMAC

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Greensboro, N.C.
    Posts
    5,034

    Post

    >>>>PS. I have to include the clip below on this thread from this point on because I want Dick to always have the last word. [Smile]<<<<

    Joe, you just won't do. [img]smile.gif[/img]

    OK, you win. Everyone take notice, from this point forward, I will never use Sumac smoke to kill mites. Starting today, I will be using it as a deodorant to kill the smell of goldenrod honey being processed. I will even start in the spring to give it time to build up in the hive before the goldenrod begins to bloom in the fall. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #82
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Raleigh, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,525

    Post

    ahh, smoked honey
    nothing could be finer [img]tongue.gif[/img]

    Dave

  4. #83
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Inver Grove, MN
    Posts
    1,461

    Post

    OK, I'll take the pledge. I won't use sumac smoke either, but I may start making hive bodies out of the wood.
    Linux - World domination through world cooperation

  5. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,182

    Post

    Great Iddee and Hillside!
    I am glad I could save a few souls from the evils of sumac use.
    Welcome home!

    You see, tough love does work sometimes. [img]smile.gif[/img]

    Sumac is known as the ‘gateway smoke’. Once you start using sumac, beekeepers get hooked and then find that it isn’t enough to satisfy their cravings. They start experimenting stuffing all sorts greenery in their smokers that don’t belong there, sneaking in the neighbors yard cutting clippings off their holly trees etc.. Then when they find this ain’t enough, then they move up to the harder stuff for use in their smokers like the highly addictive hamsters and gerbils mentioned earlier in this thread . Play it safe and stay straight.

  6. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cleveland, Texas
    Posts
    1,377

    Post

    >According to the EPA it would depend if it was used as a pesticide or not.

    >The EPA link below explains it very well.
    All should read the link that do not understand why it is illegal to use sumac as a pesticide in beehives.

    http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/envirom/pestwhtr.htm

    Are you living in Austrailia or New South Wales (NSW)? Because you are quoting Austrailian EPA and NSW code here.

    [size="1"][ July 04, 2006, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Gene Weitzel ][/size]
    "The UNKNOWN, huh? That would be SNORBERT ZANGOX over in Waycross."

  7. #86
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,182

    Post

    Yes it is an Australia site. But it does explain what a pesticide is as defined in Webster. Definitions of the English language would be the same weather in Australia or the USA.

    Pesticide - an agent used to destroy pests
    http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pesticide

  8. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cleveland, Texas
    Posts
    1,377

    Post

    >According to the EPA it would depend if it was used as a pesticide or not.

    Statements and references to Webster and the Aussie's EPA clearly do not set policy at our EPA.

    Since your previous post does not specifically clarify its source, it is irrelavent and misleading as any American would interpret "EPA" being quoted by an American to mean the U.S. EPA and not the Austrailian EPA.

    Here is a link to the code that defines our EPA policy regarding the registration of pesticides.

    Registration of Pesticides

    It does indeed have just as broad a definition of pesticide. However, the requirement for registration and control of a pesticide is only necessary in regard to sale and distribution of pesticides. In order for the EPA to be involved in regulating the use of a pesticide it must be to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.

    Clearly using sumac smoke either as mite control or for the normal smoking purpose does not come under the EPA's regulation authority. Only if you were trying to sell a sumac based miticide would it be required to be registered.
    "The UNKNOWN, huh? That would be SNORBERT ZANGOX over in Waycross."

  9. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,182

    Post

    ---->
    Gene wrote:
    --registration and control of a pesticide is only necessary in regard to sale and distribution of pesticides.

    --Clearly using sumac smoke either as mite control or for the normal smoking purpose does not come under the EPA's regulation authority.
    ---->


    Gene,
    IF a substance is used as a pesticide, BY LAW it falls under the same regulation as any other pesticide would.

    Look at the sodium cyanide fiasco.
    Sodium cyanide that beekeepers were caught using to kill honeybees is registered for use in the commercial chrome plating business and in mining for extracting gold and silver from ore. It is not illegal to possess the compound, but it is also NOT REGESTERED AS A PESTICIDE anywhere in the United States and therefore illegal to use the substance as a pesticide.

    Read about it:
    http://www.pesticidesafety.uiuc.edu/...l/200501e.html


    --Statements and references to Webster and the Aussie's EPA clearly do not set policy at our EPA.

    I already provided the EPA (USA) definition earlier, her it is again.
    It is virtually the same:

    --->
    According to the EPA Definition:

    "A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest...."

    http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/#what_pesticide
    --->

    So that includes "any substance" obtained from plants growing in your yard that are stuffed in your smoker and used as a pesticide.

    [size="1"][ July 05, 2006, 06:42 AM: Message edited by: Pcolar ][/size]

  10. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Columbia, South Carolina USA
    Posts
    2,596

    Post

    "Sodium cyanide that beekeepers were caught using to kill honeybees"

    I wasn't paying much attention to the fiasco. Were these bees being killed as part of what some folks in the frozen north call management? Or were they used to get rid of bees that no one wanted?

    Keith
    Bee Sting Honey - So Good, It Hurts!

  11. #90
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cleveland, Texas
    Posts
    1,377

    Post

    Joe:

    I don't think anyone could argue that the use of sodium cyanide as a pesticide would not have unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. This is why its is use falls under the EPA's regulatory authority. It is also exactly why it is not registered for use as a pesticide. It is clearly not an applicable comparison.


    I have no argument with your application of the EPA's definition of a pesticide as anything you stuff into your smoker. From Title 7 of the US Agriculture code:

    The term “pest” means
    (1) any insect, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed...


    The term “pesticide” means

    (1) any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest...


    Technically, based on this general definition of pests and pesticides, the use of any smoke could be considered using an unregistered pesticide since we are using it to repel or mitigate the bees when we manage a hive. However, it clearly does not have any unreasonable adverse effect on the environment and therefore does not warrant any kind of regulation. As has been stated before in this thread it is absolutely silly to attempt to use this code to justify your position that the use of sumac smoke to mitigate mites is illegal because you are using an unregistered pesticide. Using this logic, since cement is not registered with the EPA for use as a pesticide (I actually used the National Pesticide Information Retrieval System to verify this), pouring a 20x20 cement slab under your beehives to control the pupation of SHB would be in violation of the law. Heck, the use of a cement slab to keep termites out of our homes would also be in violation of the law. This absolutely borders on the ridiculous.

    The use by special interest groups of this type of mis-interpretation of laws based on the technical definition instead of the context for which the law was created in order to further their own agenda is exactly what has perpetuated the "joke" that is the current state of the legal system in this country.

    [size="1"][ July 05, 2006, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Gene Weitzel ][/size]
    "The UNKNOWN, huh? That would be SNORBERT ZANGOX over in Waycross."

  12. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Volga, SD
    Posts
    2,792

    Post

    The sodium cyanide being used by beekeepers was used to control wax moths, not kill honey bees. Of course, any bees exposed to the cyanide would become casualties, too.

    I've never had such heavy infestations of wax moths that I would resort to using cyanide against them, but I doubt I'd use cyanide even if the wax moths were that bad. It's another of those substances like I mentioned earlier on this thread: "If it's so bad that you have to wear protective gear to use it in your hives, do you want to eat some in your honey? Isn't it likely to harm the bees?"

    Sodium cyanide is also a "natural product," and it tends to break down quickly in the environment. The chemicals produced when it breaks down are innocuous.

  13. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cleveland, Texas
    Posts
    1,377

    Post

    Sumac has a long history of edible uses:

    The hairy covering of the drupes is harvested and used as a spice (a deep red powder with a sour taste) in some Middle Eastern countries, particularly with rice. In North America, the smooth sumac, Rhus glabra, and the staghorn sumac, Rhus typhina, are sometimes used to make a beverage, termed "sumac-ade" or "Indian lemonade" or "rhus juice". This drink is made by soaking the drupes in cool water, rubbing the active principle off the drupes, then straining the liquid through a cotton cloth and sweetening it. Native Americans also used the leaves and berries of the smooth and staghorn sumacs combined with tobacco in traditional smoking mixtures. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumac )

    The same definately cannot be said for sodium cyanide. Even though it is a "natural product" and breaks down in the environment into innocuous components, the potential adverse effects of its wide spread use/mis-use as a pesticide before it breaks down can be environmentally devastating. This is obviously why the use of substances such as sodium cyanide are regulated while the use of other substances such as Sumac are not.

    [size="1"][ July 05, 2006, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Gene Weitzel ][/size]
    "The UNKNOWN, huh? That would be SNORBERT ZANGOX over in Waycross."

  14. #93
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,931

    Post

    Gene has just sawed the branch!! [img]smile.gif[/img]

  15. #94
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,182

    Post

    Keith, they were according to the article, using it illiegally as a pesticide.

    [size="1"][ July 05, 2006, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ][/size]

  16. #95
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,182

    Post

    Gene,
    Think what you want,
    But the EPA definition of pseticide remains:

    --->
    According to the EPA Definition:

    "A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest...."

    http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/#what_pesticide
    --->

  17. #96
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cleveland, Texas
    Posts
    1,377

    Post

    Joe:

    You miss my point. My contention was never about the definition. My point is that the code makes it clear that the use of some substances as "pesticides" (based on this broad definition) do not require regulation or registration (see my cement example in previous post). Again I quote Title 7 of the US agriculture code:

    (a) Requirement of registration
    Except as provided by this subchapter, no person in any State may distribute or sell to any person any pesticide that is not registered under this subchapter. To the extent necessary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, the Administrator may by regulation limit the distribution, sale, or use in any State of any pesticide that is not registered under this subchapter...

    It appears that their authority to regulate the sale and distribution of a substance to be used as a pesticide through registration is clear. But it is equally clear that their authority to regulate the actual use of an unregistered substance as a pesticide is limited to the extent necessary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.

    Based on this distinction and the history of previous use in smokers as well as other edible uses, I don't see any way that "grabbing" some Sumac in my yard and using it in my smoker because I think it might have miticidal benefits would qualify it for regulation by the EPA. Again, it would be considered "silly" or frivolous to attempt to apply the code in this manner.

    [size="1"][ July 05, 2006, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Gene Weitzel ][/size]
    "The UNKNOWN, huh? That would be SNORBERT ZANGOX over in Waycross."

  18. #97

    Post

    While all that is well and good its a matter of wether EPA pesticide regulations apply to the use of an individual private applicator at all. For one all regulations are derived from the point a Pesiticide/herbicide/Rodenticide is to be marketed and sold. It's at that point it becomes regulated. And even if it was to be submitted for permiting it would be on the fast track. As evidenced by the special handling of Biopesticides

    http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/index.htm

    The fact is that an individual burning a common wood/plant (Sumac) for whatever reason is not subject to EPA FIFRA regulation. He is not manufacturing or selling a pesticide. He is using a biopesticide but its not even listed as restricted us nor non restricted. And its not commercialy obtained because its not a commercial product. And so it does not fall under EPA as far as FIFRA is concerned.

    But be aware the EPA has lots of tentcles. But I seriously doubt one will catch you in this use of a natural method on your own property obtained from your own sources.

    [size="1"][ July 05, 2006, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: cphilip ][/size]

  19. #98
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cleveland, Texas
    Posts
    1,377

    Post

    >While all that is well and good its a matter of wether EPA pesticide regulations apply to the use of an individual private applicator at all. For one all regulations are derived from the point a Pesiticide/herbicide/Rodenticide is to be marketed and sold.

    A good point, this comes from the fact that almost all federal regulations are derived from Congress' authority to regulate commerce between the states.
    "The UNKNOWN, huh? That would be SNORBERT ZANGOX over in Waycross."

  20. #99
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,182

    Post

    Ok Gene, you made your point!
    Thanks for the good research you all others here have done, great stuff!

    Hey, I got to go now, there’s a real controversial thread going on over on bee forum about the definition of feral honeybee.
    See you all over there! [img]smile.gif[/img]

    Best Wishes!

  21. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    8

    Post

    No doubt you could sell Staghorn Sumac berries in the "Health Food Store" as a "nutritional supplement" (and let people whisper that it cures the common cold, or avian flu or whatever) and get it passed by the FDA under the GRAS rule (Generally Recognized As Safe). Probably the same is true in the bee smoker.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 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
  •