Oxalic Acid

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

pargyle

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
***
BeeKeeping Supporter
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
17,307
Reaction score
8,412
Location
Fareham, Hampshire UK
Hive Type
14x12
Number of Hives
6
In the light of recent threads on Oxalic Acid I was looking at the VMD Website ... and it occurred to me ...

Varroa arrived in the UK in 1992. It had been around in other European countries in honey bee colonies for some considerable time before that. The initial treatments Bayvarol was licenced on a mutually accepted licence by the VMD in 1992 and had been licenced in Europe for some time but it took until 1997 for Apistan to become officially licenced for use in the UK. By this time Oxalic Acid had become a recognised treatment for varroa within Europe and other parts of the world (Japan and the Far East) - admittedly for administation by either trickling or spraying.

Now Beekeepers have been trickling OA as a treatment for varroa since (the earliest reference I can find in the UK is around 2001 ... I'm sure there were a few pioneers of the treatment before this - I just can't find a hard reference to it.

Apibioxal was not licensed until 2015 ... there does not appear to be anything that has OA as its active ingredient prior to this.

So ... prior to this presumably beekeepers were using plain OA to mix up their own syrup for trickling and were in breach of the VMD regulations ?

We are not going to be tied to be completely tied to EU veterinary directives in another few days and it is generally accepted that OA is a recognised and effective treatment for varroa and it is further accepted that sublimation is at the top of the list for effectiveness.

Perhaps it is time that we beekeepers started to lobby for some common sense and a licence to be granted for generic OA to be granted by the VMD for all types of application ... they state that licencing is expensive and can take between 5 and 11 years but I can find little information about how a product gains approval.

I'm just curious ... if OA was used for so long before Apibioxal was licenced .... then what did the VMD do about its use prior to that ?

https://www.vmd.defra.gov.uk/ProductInformationDatabase/Default.aspx
https://www.noah.co.uk/briefingdocument/controls-on-veterinary-medicines/
http://www.moraybeedinosaurs.co.uk/archives/oxalic_acid.htm
http://beeman.se/research/oxalic/oxalic-1-nf.htm
https://www.vita-europe.com/beehealth/blog/varroa-uk-25-years/
 
Last edited:
I'm just curious ... if OA was used for so long before Apibioxal was licenced .... then what did the VMD do about its use prior to that ?
Took them that long to realise that there was a profit in it for shareholders, and the odd 'brown envelope'
 
Japan professor published OA gasification method in 1964.

Spraying 3% oxalic water liquid on each side of bee comb before trickling. I do not know, when it was started.

Italian professor Nanetti invented trickling with 4% OA + water sugar solution in 1998.

I started Perizin trickling in 1987. Before that Finland did not have any method to handle varroa during first 10 years.

European Union Varroa research group made OA method ready during 1998 - 2003. The methods were taken into use in Europe even if lisence was not approved.
 
Last edited:
Japan professor published OA gasification method in 1964.

Spraying 3% oxalic water liquid on each side of bee comb before trickling. I do not know, when it was started.

Italian professor Nanetti invented trickling with 4% OA + water sugar solution in 1998.

I started Perizin trickling in 1987.
.
Yes ... I know that Europe was well ahead of the UK in treatment of bees for varroa .. we only started to face the problem after they arrived in the UK in 1992 and our beekeepers were dreadfully slow to accept the damage that Varroa could do to honey bees that had never been exposed to the parasite - there were huge colony losses. Treatments were available in the UK but were either not used or incorrectly used when beekeepers finally started to treat the problem seriously.

Happy Christmas Finnie ... glad to see you are not in hibernation up there ...
 
Nonsence I know... but I have been informed that more than one beekeeper around at the time of the discovery of Varroa at the Cockington apiary ( Just a half hour rail and tricycle ride from Buckfast Abbey) that the Abbey bees were the ones that spread the mite!

Will we ever be rid of it?

Nadelik Lowen
 
I'm just curious ... if OA was used for so long before Apibioxal was licenced .... then what did the VMD do about its use prior to that ?

VMD turned a blind eye to it as they had bigger fish to catch. They cant do this now as there is a licensed product (Apibioxal) containing OA available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mbc
anyone can apply for generic OA license if they use the formulation that is used for the licensed products (all 6) on UK market (provided there isn't any IP or exclusivity associated with the reference product). If one wanted to use just OA, then a new license would be needed as there is not currently a licensed OA product on market without excipients. I don't know if there is any technical reason for the excipients inclusion (glucose, silica, citric acid and a load more) across the 6 ; probably more to differentiate from plain old OA .

If a company were to bother with just OA for treatment, what would stop anyone from buying pharmacopeia grade OA and using this illegally (at a few pence a gram), rather than paying more for a legal source of OA, which would be identical? They also set up the precedent for anyone else to apply for a generic OA license as well. A discussed before, the cost of getting a license and maintaining this for the number of beekeepers who might purchase a legal OA in the UK is not going to generate any great return of the investment.

There is a route to getting a license based on prior use and published data. A trustee of the BBKA asked me about this a few years ago in response to a previous thread on the subject, but it all went quiet. Biggest cost of the license is to write it up. If someone with the appropriate experience did this FOC then application and maintenance fees would be only major expenses. Could you sell enough at a reasonable cost to cover these expenses. I don't know
 
Drippling has lasted now 20 illegal years. And before that you sprayed oxalic acid water.
 
anyone can apply for generic OA license if they use the formulation that is used for the licensed products (all 6) on UK market (provided there isn't any IP or exclusivity associated with the reference product). If one wanted to use just OA, then a new license would be needed as there is not currently a licensed OA product on market without excipients. I don't know if there is any technical reason for the excipients inclusion (glucose, silica, citric acid and a load more) across the 6 ; probably more to differentiate from plain old OA .

If a company were to bother with just OA for treatment, what would stop anyone from buying pharmacopeia grade OA and using this illegally (at a few pence a gram), rather than paying more for a legal source of OA, which would be identical? They also set up the precedent for anyone else to apply for a generic OA license as well. A discussed before, the cost of getting a license and maintaining this for the number of beekeepers who might purchase a legal OA in the UK is not going to generate any great return of the investment.

There is a route to getting a license based on prior use and published data. A trustee of the BBKA asked me about this a few years ago in response to a previous thread on the subject, but it all went quiet. Biggest cost of the license is to write it up. If someone with the appropriate experience did this FOC then application and maintenance fees would be only major expenses. Could you sell enough at a reasonable cost to cover these expenses. I don't know
The regional bee inspectorate were giving the nod to the use of OA when Varroa were showing signs of resistance to bayvoral Et al . Makes one wonder why there was a sudden change of heart ?
couldn’t be the bee pharmacists, protecting their investment in obtaining licenses for what had been being in use for a few years?
 
When LASI did its now infamous 'dig out the brood' research in 2013, it reported that it used "dihydrate OA, purity 99.6% (Sigma-Aldrich obtained from Riedel-de Haen, Enologia Apicoltura". 99.6% is the sort of purity you can now buy on ebay for cleaning boats but if you were applying for a licence, they wouldn't get it if you said your source of raw materials was ebay! You'd have to prove that your source was quality assured to BS EN ISO 9001, same for environmental quality assurance to BS EN ISO 14001, etc. etc. - the list is endless. It's presumably all that tosh that takes the time and costs the money - but ebay is a lot cheaper!

My understanding is that you'd only be prosecuted if traces of OA were found in honey you produce as a result of the use of an unauthorised veterinary medicine. So one possible answer is keep your nose clean, don't annoy the DEFRA or the VMD and learn to answer simple questions about treatment-free beekeeping.

CVB
 
The regional bee inspectorate were giving the nod to the use of OA when Varroa were showing signs of resistance to bayvoral Et al . Makes one wonder why there was a sudden change of heart ?
couldn’t be the bee pharmacists, protecting their investment in obtaining licenses for what had been being in use for a few years?

When there were no licensed OA product there were no legal alternatives to using OA without a License. NBU / VMD turned a blind eye because it was effective and they had other things to do. With granting of a license for Apibioxal VMD have a legal obligation to prevent the use of unlicensed OA treatments, just the same as MHRA would if a company tried to sell generic human medicines without a license.
And yes if a company has taken the time / money / effort to get a medicinal license, They would be pissed off if the regulator ignored copycat treatments that didn’t have the regulatory overheads to include to the factory gate price

To CVBs point, it’s all that ‘tosh’ that means we generally have safe and efficacious medicines, that have full traceability, rather that a street drug that has no providence and could have been cut with anything.

If people want to buy OA, try and get material that meets the European pharmacopeia standard (abrrevated as Ph. Eur.). It should meet a quality standard.
 
W

If people want to buy OA, try and get material that meets the European pharmacopeia standard (abrrevated as Ph. Eur.). It should meet a quality standard.

What are such quality standards. From Where you got that idea?
Never seen about such standard after using OA 20 years. What is the difference between pure industrial oxalic acid.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top