> From a chemistry standpoint, neither presents ANY
> food
> contamination risk when used to the best advantage
> of
> each - both are so volatile that there will be
> nothing
> left to contaminate honey or wax within... oh, I
> dunno,
> certainly a day or two after use, perhaps much
> quicker.
I am afraid this is not beekeeping research center
conclusion. There are some low risks with FA of
accumulation in honey. With regard FA, look at :
http://www.apis.admin.ch/index_f.htm
and read their recommandations
> Its not approved for the purpose in the USA, but as
> you
> are in Canada, you should know better than I if
> formic
> is approved for beekeeping in Canada.
Indeed, I have "an idea" of its statut over there. In
fact, it is even accepted in certified organic
beekeeping in most developped countries. I was
specificaly questionning you about the situation in
the USA, as you knew it by the way... ;-) But gestural
effects are part of your charm, aren't they ? ;-)))
> In the USA, using formic in beekeeping is exactly no
> more
> or less "wrong" than using sodium cyanide in
> beekeeping.
Well, I understand the "law is law", and "don't mess
with Texas" :-) and that kind of leitmotives but the
law does not prevent people from using their brain
(figure of style, not a personnal attack, all this is
just for fun !). I think they can question why FA is
accepted in certified organic beekeeping in most
developped countries and not in their own. If it was
my own country, I would repeat what a certain Brittish
wrote: something is rotten in the state.. ;-)
> As I pointed out, on a annualized casualty-count
> basis,
> formic acid is going to burn (or cause eye damage) a
> lot
> more people than a cyanide powder would harm in any
> way,
I understand your legitim concerns about H&S. But
those concerns can not justify FA prohibition use in
the hive. They just should guide the way it should be
used. That is why I posted : one should not mix H&S
and food contamination risk. I did not check, bu my
first feeling is that NaCN is very likely to solubize
in a water/sugar mix. The potential reactions with
acids in honey, the potential of HCN formation and so
on would make me worrying a lot. CN- family toxicity
does not make me confortable with its use anyway.
> so formic would appear to be "worse", given that we
> start
> with an assumption that the only risk is to the
> beekeeper.
> Its all fun and games until somebody gets hurt.
Caution is a great virtu, but honnestly the logic that
says "this product presents some H&S risks so one can
not use it at all" is quite utopic... and unfair. Once
again, it can not be a justification for FA
prohibition but it should guide the way FA is used. If
I follow your logic, I think it is time to stop
playing with guns out there... a lot of people already
got hurt...but it is not the point. ;-)
> If you want to get technical, formic acid is going
> to kill
> a certain percentage of queens, a certain percentage
> of
> brood, and has been known to do enough damage to
> "kill"
> the colony in some extreme cases.
Those points have been quite documented. The risks
(here I mean the risk for bees) depend on the way it
is used. In pads used in hives for several days, it is
difficult to control vaporization. But with "flash
treatment", your aim is to achieve a pic concentration
in the hive, this pic concentration is limited by the
quantity you used. See (all links copied and pasted
from Chapleau's paper because I am lazy, as you know):
Instructions pour l’utilisation ponctuelle de l’acide
formique
Centre suisse de recherches apicoles
http://www.apis.admin.ch/index_f.htm
Short Term Treatment with Formic Acid
Wolfgang Poehlmann
http://home.t-online.de/home/wolfgang.poehlmann/bass.htm
Guideline on Use of Formic Acid for Varroa Control
Ministère de l’agriculture de la Nouvelle Zélande
http://www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity/pests-diseases/animals/varroa/guidelines/formic-acid-guideline.htm
And do not forget Chapleau's web site
www.reineschapleau.wd1.net
So the relative
> technical
> merits tend to weigh against formic acid, while poor
> cyanide
> suffers from bad PR.
It is a heavy conclusion to assume. The demonstration
is far from being done... you will have to paddle hard
to convince me.
> What is that
> > expensive Haz-Mat training suitable for handling
> formic I
> > should have ?
>
> If you need to ask, then you clearly are not
> qualified to
> handle the stuff! :)
Asking the question does not mean one has not he
answere...bu you knew it again ;-)
First off, do you have kids?
> If so,
> you need to lock it up.
You mean lock it up with other beekeeping stuff like
registered check-mite, apistan, or unregistered in the
USA oxalic acid, and so on ? Yes, of course. FA did
not change my chemical storage habits although I have
not all those products, fortunatly.
Second, have you read the
> paperwork
> that came with the formic? It should be supplied
> with
> specific instructions for storage/handling, so if
> you need
> to ask, you have not even read the instructions, a
> very common
> problem among beekeepers. :)
If I had not read the complete MSDS I would not asked
the question to you, would I ? ;-)) But finnaly, you
did not really respond the question :-).
> > 1L is enough for a fair numbers of year for a few
> hives...
>
> As far as I know, 1 liter would be enough for no
> more than
> four 250ml hive treatments,
The problem is that we do not speak, or write, about
the same application method. I do not care about
commercial pads, I am afraid, nor long exposure
treatment that threaten my bees. Lets say I have 85%
FA in liquid solution. I need to apply 40 mL / hive of
65% FA solution. I think even the average beekeeper
knows the Lavoisier's law and is able to multiply and
divide.
Lets' remember when we were kids at school :
o : initial
f: final
C: concentration
V: volume
CoVo = Cf Vf
Vo = CfVf/Co
Numeric application : Vo = 65/85x40 = about 30 mL /
hive (because 30.6 is uneasy to measure)
Number of treatments with 1 L: 1/0.03 = 33 treatments
Cost per treatment : about 30¢, pipettes, gloves, wind
and device not included.
> By the same logic, the "true crime" is that a cheap
> and
> highly efficient wax-moth control that leaves no
> residue
> at all is not permitted in beekeeping only because
> no one
> wishes to pay for EPA studies about sodium cyanide!
I confess I really do not know about this cyanide
stuff. I can not advocate it and I would not want. But
my point is, from the beginning, that it can not be
compared with FA considering the existing
documentation of FA use in beekeeping througout the
world. The comparison seems irrelevant to me. If one
want to justify sodium cyanide, then lets document it.
FA already made its proofs (is that English ?). :-)
> Should
> we send protest letters and file briefs in defense
> of whoever
> got caught using (and losing) some sodium cyanide?
I can not follow your logic here. Because someone got
caught with a prohibited pill, one should keep
prohibiting Tylenol while it has been being safely
used in 100 other countries for years ?
> Face it - neither sodium cyanide or bulk liquid
> formic acid
> are ever going to be "approved" in the USA,
> regardless of how
> many studies are submitted.
And do you think it is fair and it should be well
accepted by all of you ? One should clearly
distinguish FA case from NaCN case, they are 2 very
different products. That was my almost-only point !
;-)
Hervé
More French than Canadian but Canadian French among
the French Canadians and vice versa
Vous manquez d’espace pour stocker vos mails ?
Yahoo! Mail vous offre GRATUITEMENT 100 Mo !
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.benefits.yahoo.com/
Le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger est arrivé ! Découvrez toutes les nouveautés pour dialoguer instantanément avec vos amis. A télécharger gratuitement sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
