Apivar and wax

I normally nadir uncapped honey shallows and then, in spring, reuse the good, empty drawn frames of shallows in the honey supers. But I've become worried about Apivar that may still be in the wax. I'm not worried that the bees may be affected (I don't think they are), but that it may affect the next harvest of honey or, if I render the wax, that it might still be in the wax.

Apivar says amitraz does not leave any residues in wax or honey. FAQ 15 and 16 - here -. I was just feeling ok about nadiring, when I read on BEE-L about degradation products that may remain in the wax. Most of that thread goes over my head - so, somebody who knows about these things (Fatshark?), should I remove the shallows I intended to nadir until I've finished the Apivar treatment, or can I just feel safe and nadir them while treating the hive with Apivar?

Kitta

Hi Kitta

I'd have referred you to the Bee-L discussion. I'd need to re-read it to refresh my memory (and I have a car full of supers that need attention) but my recollection was that one of the breakdown products was wax soluble and had a low level of miticidal activity. I think there are two issues:

1. Will residues help select for Amitraz resistance in mites? Don't now as I'm not sure of the mode of action that the breakdown product activity has ... if it's the same as Apivar then this is clearly something to avoid.
2. Will it contaminate the wax and be detectable if SASA (or whoever) tests your honey next year? Possibly to the former, but I'm less sure it would be detectable as I presume they test for Apivar/Amitraz, not a product of Apivar/Amitraz breakdown (but don't know).

If it's any help I always remove all supers if at all possible when treating. I have a couple this year with emerging brood (escapee queen above the QE, now nadir'd) and I'll leave those on and then melt down the frames. My view is always that I'm trying to produce the best possible product and so try and go the extra yard to keep all the nasties away ... a bit more work, but you know you're doing the right thing.

I'll try and have a look again at Bee-L but have a hot date with my extractor ;)

Thank you, Fatshark - that's helpful. I'll follow your example and remove all honey supers - capped or uncapped. I'll mark any supers in hives with Apivar, and in spring render the wax (not to be used for food wraps or cosmetics).
Kitta

Hi
Interesting discourse! Does nobody use generic oxalic acid now? No residues, quick and very cost effective!

Eric McArthur

I'm sure people do because it leaves No residues, [and is] quick and very cost effective! ;) As long as the colony is broodless of course. However, it's not a VMD approved treatment, other than as a component of Api-Bioxal and a newer pre-made solution for trickling the name of which escapes me this early in the morning.

In defence of the approved treatments, I calculate Varroa management costs me less per hive per year than I charge for a 340 g jar of honey. And my honey isn't that expensive! Sure, it stings when I buy the Apivar, but over the year the costs are trivial ... and a very good investment.

Yes, Eric. I've used Oxybee for the past two years as a mid-winter treatment as per Fatshark's advice on his blog. I suppose Oxybee is the name you were looking for, Fatshark. I'm not a person to judge as to whether the glycerol in Oxybee makes it a better product than Api-Bioxal.

Thanks also for putting the cost in perspective, FS.
Kitta

Hi Fatshark/Kitta
There is so much hyp surrounding Varroa treatment these days! That Apivar is recommended only when no suppers are on the hive - indicates that residues could be a problem: Not good!! Oxybee, another new kid on the block and not cheap!!
Does anyone know which oxalic acid constitutes the active ingredient here? The other components seem to be almost a 'witches brew'. The only substance in these 'oxalic acid mixes', including Api-bioxal, that affect the mite is oxalic acid. The additives are 'smoke and mirrors'! It is time beekeepers woke up to these 'brews' and challenged the VMD to produce the background research on which the manufacturers base their claims!

Eric

I guess the basic oxalic acid was too cheap for someone to get it registered as an approved product - so Apibioxal did the work initially. However as oxalic acid gives no detectable residues after a short while, people could use it and no one would never know unless you write it down in your notes...

Apibioxal contains oxalic acid, sugar and an anti-caking agent that's not needed if you don't put sugar in there. Make of that what you will.

When CCD appeared in the US a few years ago, there was a lot of concern about residue in wax (especially as some in the US use wax again and again). That concern seems to have disappeared from view. (Mine anyway). I'll have to look at Bee-l. Although it will probably be above my head too Kitta!

Hi Adam
You sound refreshingly like a free thinker! As a matter of fact the authorisation for oxalic acid as an anti Varroa treatment occurred in December 2003 and the decision to include it in Annex II of the Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/99 was taken at a meeting in LONDON on the 10th of that month‼ Refer to the May, 2004 issue, pp 137 – 139 of the SB magazine. Check out when oxalic acid was actually authorised for use in the UK‼! There is a lot of Smoke and Mirrors surrounding oxalic acid: Sugar as an additive to oxalic acid treatment is all part of the illusion! Also not until Api Bioxal ‘appeared on the scene’ was it realised that the original Swiss researchers had been working with anhydrous oxalic acid and not oxalic acid dihydrate. Try making up 3.5% aqueous/sugar syrup solution using 35 g of oxalic acid dihydrate in 1000 mils of this syrup. No can do‼ Such a concentration of oxalic acid solution can only be achieved using anhydrous oxalic acid. Refer to the November, 2000 issue, p. 266 of the SB magazine