I'm not against responsible experimentation. That chastisement offended my libertarian sensibilities. Cryberg hopes you are put in jail for conducting an experiment on your own bees with your own equipment, and money? That's absurd.After my last post, I received this kind and encouraging private message from a Dick Cryberg in Ohio:
Is Dick just that, or is there a true legal issue here? Has anyone heard of a US lab testing this? I realize that any non-approved treatment is risky, but anecdotal evidence suggests that thousands of gallons of 12% Amitraz are crossing the border into the US and are then used in commercial beehives nationwide in a wholly illegal manner. Organic acids are dangerous to the person applying them as well, and are also deadly to larval bees. The fact of the matter is that we do not have a satisfactorily affordable mite treatment method and the faster we can get answers to the question of whether this treatment is worth pursuing or should go the way of Coumaphos, Fluvalinate and Fumagilin the better our industry will be.
Would you feel the same about a farmer 1/4 mile away using experimental insecticides that havent been tested/approved ?put in jail for conducting an experiment on your own bees with your own equipment, and money? That's absurd.
Approved by the FDA?Would you feel the same about a farmer 1/4 mile away using experimental insecticides that havent been tested/approved ?
responsible experimentation includes a permit, testing, replicates, and destruction of the "contaminated" honey
I would wager 99%+ of the "experimenters" on BS don't plan on giving up their honey crop
I am with you on this and so are almost everyone else on the thing they are doing and are comfortable with. There are enough rules that everybody has their favorite rule to violate like was mentioned on things like taktic from mexico or wood bleach from home depot.With that said, I've already stated my position on this matter. Threatening, or wishing, another human would be kidnapped and locked in a cage for 10 years isn't cool, in my opinion.
Though richard has by his own admission in places, experimented with things out side of label approval though I am sure he knew the stuff he was working with and how to control it so that it was a safe experiment.Which is why Richard Cryberg says what he says.
A year ago I did experiments where I fogged water solutions of oxalic acid. I did a treatment once a week for several weeks and found mite counts totally unaffected by the treatment. Treated hives had counts by an alcohol wash just as high as the untreated controls.
I have also done some experiments testing what happens to ethanol when run thru a fogger. Fogger conditions are set up perfectly to cause the water gas reaction. Sure enough, I saw lots of evidence of some really ugly chemicals being produced from ethanol by passage thru the fogger. I sure as heck do not want those chemicals in my hives or showing up in my honey. I strongly suspect some of those ethanol decomposition products will be carcinogens. In fact it would be amazing if they are not. I saw enough without even adding any oxalic acid to the mix that I knew I would never use the process and never suggest anyone else should use it either.
I also looked at potential explosion issues due to putting ethanol and ethanol decomposition products into the hive. I found you could get ignition, but the pressure produced was so low all you got was a bit of a "Whoosh" sound that did not lift the lid nor blow out the candle used inside the hive as an ignition source. Three ignitions over the course of a few minutes was only enough heat to mildly warm the plastic foundation in the hive.
As there is a danger involved in honey contamination with unknown toxic organics produced by the water gas reaction and as no one has demonstrated that this application actually kills any mites I would suggest it is not very smart to use it. You are also breaking the law by introducing an unregistered formulation into your hive.
|If I am interpreting something incorrectly with my previous statement, I apologize. It was an attempt to put things in perspective and not an attempt to change anything that is. My perspective was what I said and based on what I can see which I am willing to show so that it can be pointed out where I am wrong. I got a personal message saying I was making things up and maybe I am but if so, not on purpose. This is what I used to make my statement and I am not above an interpretation error but do my best to not make things up. I did not even post with ill will of any sort.|
Actually, most patents are for processes, not specific compounds/methods. Its trivial for competitors to come up with a slightly different compound that acts in the same fashion (e.g. another lithium salt); general methods are harder to overcome. Indeed, this patent covers not only LiCl, but also "An organic or inorganic salt of lithium for use in prophylactic and/or therapeutic treatment of Varroa destructor mite infestation of honey bees", and covers a range of application/treatment methods.That isn't a Patent - it's a Patent Application. I'd be most surprised if it's approved, as this isn't an invention - it's a novel application of a chemical which already exists. If applications themselves could be patented, then there would be millions of patents already in existence for various computer programs. Find a novel use for (say) common table salt ... and then patent it ? I don't think so.
But - even if a Patent were to be granted - how could it ever be policed/defended ? Lithium Chloride is freely available (if a tad expensive) - so anybody, anywhere can buy it, and for unspecified use.
Its sale cannot be restricted - except for the use which is patented. Should a supply chemical sell LiCl knowing it will be for treatment of bees, than they are in violation of the patent and the patent holder can sue. These types of lawsuits are fairly common, and are almost always won by the patent holder. In theory, they could also sue beekeeps who get it from a non-bee supplier and then use it on their bees (although these kinds of actions are rare as the cost of pursuing the case is usually more than any penalties).Providing a substance has at least one other legitimate use, it's sale cannot reasonably be restricted.
I think you are confused about what patents do and how they offer protection to the inventor/owner. They do not restrict sales of an item; they only limit where that item (or process) can be legally used. No sales restrictions/etc enter into the marketplace to protect the patent; rather, it is up to the patent holder to monitor for, and pursue violations. In some cases this amounts to a sales ban (e.g. if you've invented some sort of doo-hickey), but when it comes to multi-purpose items like chemicals, all a patent does is restrict where and how it can be used - not its sale.Oxalic Acid as a wood bleach is a good example. Ammonium Sulphamate (unapproved for use as a weed-killer within the EU - but still widely used as such) is another. And so I can't envisage restrictions on the sale of Lithium Salts any time soon.
And given that this patent has a good chance of being accepted, its hardly a waste of their money."Patent Applied For" is a good bluffing tool to keep naive competitors at bay, and you are quite correct to say that the difficulty of enforcement has no bearing on whether a patent gets approved, but it IS fundamental to whether adopting such a course of action is worthwhile or not. To apply for a Patent which cannot be enforced is a complete waste of time and money.
Having a number of patents myself, including two which I have pursued violators on, I have to disagree. Big businesses are loath to violate them, as patent courts tend to scale penalties to the size of the violator and size of the violation. Its simply cheaper for them to buy-out or licence the patent.Contrary to popular belief, the Patent System does very little to promote innovation by offering affordable protection.