Ibuprofen in syrup mix?

[Anduril]

It lost interest in my own thread now. It's gone a bit weird.

Paper you might be interested in which is back on track of sorts https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...IZaBYMzYgE2Ha_DdQ&sig2=OoSvjhxjdAWVE50vqhqvCw

 

[Karol]

Don't remember saying that OA was dangerous.

 

[Karol]

Yes, much kinder to the bees, and very difficult to over dose compared to the trickle method, which is quite harmful.

http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/files/__www.mellifera.de_engl2.pdf

The route of application isn't at issue so much as the dosing which has to be based on a trusted source of OA. I understand the point made but the SPCs are more than just peer reviewed, they are critically assessed by the regulator. The references in support of the sublimator are provided largely by the device manufacturer and it serves their purpose to extoll the virtues of that route of administration. Whilst I have no issue about claims for efficacy, I'd be more cautious about making sweeping statements on safety of dosing because there is ample room for confusion between the different formulations.

All said and done it's just safer to use a trusted and verifiable source of OA regardless of route of administration.

 

[Finman]

.
Hivemaker says that trickling is harmfull to bees. I wonder how?

All researches say that it does not affect on spring build up.

IT is clear that trickling violates open brood.
.

But do as you will. Thousands of beekeepers use trickling without harms and get splended yields.
Many of our professionals give two tricklings during winter and queens live several years.
.

 

[Hivemaker.]

All said and done it's just safer to use a trusted and verifiable source of OA

After doing many thousands of doses over several years I'm very happy with my source.

 

[Finman]

.

All said and done it's just safer to use a trusted and verifiable source of OA regardless of route of administration.

Sublimation has been used 30 years and trickling almost 20 years.

The methods should be clear what they are and how to use them.

Beeks are not willing to read original researches. They feel better when discussion goes on rumour level and all can invent their own recipes.

 

[Hivemaker.]

...

http://portsmouthbeekeepers.co.uk/oxalic_acid_research_2015.pdf

 

[REDWOOD]

But a beekeeper who has had 30 years experience nursing bees should know what is best for their bees. personalty I never grew to like dribbling oxalic acid but took up sublimation after a very experienced beekeeper told me a few things. Now I use it with complete confidence and without any affect on bees, queen or brood. If I had my way I would ban Apiguard as the queen stops laying, brood are ejected and this delays a hive building up for winter.

 

[fatshark]

.
Hivemaker says that trickling is harmfull to bees. I wonder how?

All researches say that it does not affect on spring build up.

IT is clear that trickling violates open brood.

.

Am I missing something here?

Re. spring build-up ... Ratneiks recently published that trickling does retard spring build-up.

Isn't there also evidence somewhere about trickling and long-term queen viability?

This is the thread that just keeps on giving ...

 

[Hivemaker.]

This is the thread that just keeps on giving ...

I have used VMD approved pharmaceutical grade Amitraz on a few of the bees this year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitraz

 

[Anduril]

I have used VMD approved pharmaceutical grade Amitraz on a few of the bees this year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitraz

A few commercial beeks are using it. The ones I have spoken to anyway.

 

[Hivemaker.]

A few commercial beeks are using it.

Yes, I know several others that are using it as well.

The negative posts in this thread about using the softer more organic methods of control, like oxalic, are likely to drive some back to using the hard chemical/pesticide methods.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Karol]

...

http://portsmouthbeekeepers.co.uk/oxalic_acid_research_2015.pdf

Interesting paper. Most important thing I think to take away from it is that at the prescribed dose of 2.25g there is no significant difference between the three routes of administration and they all have excellent kill rates at that dose.

In response to your last comment Hivemaker, this debate isn't about whether to use OA or something else. It's about achieving the same level of kill for each application as has been achieved in the paper you quote. In order to do that you have to be able to reproduce the same conditions which importantly includes the quality of OA to start with.

In the research paper they used OA from Sigma Aldritch. They are a specialist company providing pharmaceutical reference standard chemicals so the purity of OA from Sigma is extremely tightly controlled which is why their OA is so expensive. Sigma do not supply chemicals for treatment use, only for laboratory use. The only OA on the market that is guaranteed to meet the same quality standard is that in the licensed products. Which is what this debate is about, licensed OA vs unlicensed OA and supposed exploitation by the regulator.

I understand the attraction if sublimation but I question how much better it is compared to trickling using the licensed product. If the settings on the sublimator are too high the amount of OA that breaks down increases. I don't see anywhere a specification for the settings for the sublimator. There is also the exposure risk to bee keepers especially in multiple hive situations.

To be perfectly clear - my stance on this is that using and following the instructions (SPC) of the licensed product is most likely to give you safe and reproducible results and importantly keep you on the right side of the law.

I don't have any more to add so I'll bow out as I agree this thread should not become negative. OA is an important tool in the control of varroa.

 

[Hivemaker.]

I don't have any more to add so I'll bow out

That is good Karol, because after reading your post it is obvious there is so much you don't understand that continuing would be pointless.

 

[Karol]

Oh I understand plenty. It's when self regulation fails that the regulators step in.

And you're right, continuing would be pointless.

 

[Beefriendly]

In the research paper they used OA from Sigma Aldritch. They are a specialist company providing pharmaceutical reference standard chemicals so the purity of OA from Sigma is extremely tightly controlled which is why their OA is so expensive.

Sigma were always the cheap end of the research chemical companies.
And it shows ....your generally available "deck cleaner" from fleabay, 1kg for less than £9 including postage.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1kg-oxali...784371?hash=item2cb48e47b3:g:l64AAOSwX~dWipTl
comes out at 99.6% pure on the label.
Sigma do at least seven different grades of Oxalic acid,
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog...gitkUvQeRxRLFCmBsM4EC_E6o6xHAwrRpzRoCGPLw_wcB

only the very top two grades are purer (at 99.99%), the others are less pure than the deck cleaner!
It makes not a jot of difference which you use unless you are a fool with your money.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Got a nice little line in Oxalic at the moment

 

[Karol]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...es-precursors-and-poison#regulated-substances

I take it that all of you who purchase OA have the relevant EPP licence from the Home Office?

Any comment JBM?

 

[Hivemaker.]

I take it that all of you who purchase OA have the relevant EPP licence from the Home Office?

You are not required to have an EPP licence if you import, acquire, use or possess the substances listed in a business or professional capacity.

https://eforms.homeoffice.gov.uk/outreach/epp-licence-new-guidance.ofml

http://www.beekeepingforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=35691