Bacilius thuringiensis on frames for wax moth control?

[tommy dave 932]

I've read of a few people spraying drawn out frames with Bacilius thuringiensis treatments (e.g. https://www.kiwicare.co.nz/product/organic-caterpillar-bio-control/) prior to and during storage as a measure against wax moth. Anyone know much about legality of this, or whether it's appropriate to subsequently use these frames in honey supers?

[Trevor Gillbanks 6221]

I would certainly not spray my frames with an insecticide.  Legal or not, it does not sound like a good idea.

 

[tudor 1526]

Certan, approved in many contries, is Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies aizawai,  This one mentioned here  is Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki which is the wrong one.

This has been discussed a lot in the past and is not approved in NZ for wax moth.

Look back to find the details.

[dansar 5326]

Did some research 

 

if if you are an certified organic beekeeper you can use it 

https://www.asurequality.com/assets/Organic-Files/organics-standard-2015-FULL-V6-Feb16.pdf

 

[tommy dave 932]

51 minutes ago, tudor said:

Look back to find the details.

i searched using 'bacilius', will have another go. Cheers

and result, = found some threads, turns out spelling matters

 

Edited March 21 by tommy dave

[tudor 1526]

Hi use "thuringiensis" and the whole issue is found.

 

8 hours ago, dansar said:

Did some research 

 

if if you are an certified organic beekeeper you can use it 

https://www.asurequality.com/assets/Organic-Files/organics-standard-2015-FULL-V6-Feb16.pdf

 

 

Well, well, if OK for organic use then it must be OK for general use ?

 

[Christi An 200]

Used it in the past while beekeeping in europe (called "B401", works like a charm.) protects frames for 8 months against any wax moth. Harmless for bees and humans (better do some research trev before you claim such things).

 

Anyway stopped using it because i couldnt be bothered spraying it. Bees handle wax moths very well and honey frames which never had brood in them tend to not get infested.

 

If you want to store empty brood frames outside the hives it might be a solution.

 

definately better than mothballs or other chemical crap.

[Trevor Gillbanks 6221]

28 minutes ago, Christi An said:

(better do some research trev before you claim such things).

Maybe you should read what I wrote.  Not what you think I said.

 

[Christi An 200]

maybe if ecrotek was selling a product with BT in it you'd write differently 😉

[Trevor Gillbanks 6221]

59 minutes ago, Christi An said:

maybe if ecrotek was selling a product with BT in it you'd write differently 😉

I find that extremely offensive.  I expect a retraction to that.

[dansar 5326]

3 hours ago, tudor said:

Hi use "thuringiensis" and the whole issue is found.

 

Well, well, if OK for organic use then it must be OK for general use ?

 

Possibly. 

I didn’t have time to do any further online research. I suppose an easy way would be to email Assurequality and get their advise.

[tommy dave 932]

7 hours ago, Christi An said:

maybe if ecrotek was selling a product with BT in it you'd write differently 😉

i suspect that if any beekeeping supplier was selling this product then they would be selling it for the expressly stated purpose of treating against wax moth in stored frames, and i would be comfortable that they wouldn't risk their livelihood by doing so illegally.

My query wasn't so much about safety or even efficacy, but rather about the legality of use of the product for this purpose in NZ.

[Grant 3969]

On 21/03/2019 at 9:59 PM, dansar said:

Did some research 

 

if if you are an certified organic beekeeper you can use it 

Ok so this is for use on hive equipment for pest control and disinfecting. Is there anything to say that honey should be removed prior to treatment like there is with other products?

On 21/03/2019 at 7:32 PM, Trevor Gillbanks said:

I would certainly not spray my frames with an insecticide.  Legal or not, it does not sound like a good idea.

 

 

On 22/03/2019 at 9:07 AM, Christi An said:

maybe if ecrotek was selling a product with BT in it you'd write differently 😉

How on earth do you get to that conclusion? Not a fair statement at all.

[dansar 5326]

@Grant someone else is Researching that answer. I’ll advise soon as I know.

Edited March 24 by dansar

[ChrisM 782]

On 22/03/2019 at 10:51 AM, dansar said:

I suppose an easy way would be to email Assurequality and get their advise.

 

Is it possible to explain why Assurequality would be be the entity that says yes or no on such a matter? Do they have a budget for spending time on any question that anyone might put to them? Who pays for that? Is this a matter were MPI on behalf of government ministers make/interpret the law, but similar to the NAFBPMP it is/was subcontracted out to AQ to make it happen? 

I'm not being critical or anything, I just don't understand how the system works.

Is it because all the AP1 are full time employees of AQ, so there is nobody else outside of AQ left to ask?

It does seem there many threads on the forum where some action or other is in a grey area; not specifically approved and not specifically prohibited.

[Sailabee 689]

I would think it is an MPI matter as they used to control the registration of all animal remedies, and it used to take longer to get products registered for vets to use/supply than pharmaceuticals for humans. 

[dansar 5326]

1 hour ago, Sailabee said:

I would think it is an MPI matter as they used to control the registration of all animal remedies, and it used to take longer to get products registered for vets to use/supply than pharmaceuticals for humans. 

Possibly

All I know is it is mentioned in the document produced and audited by Assure Quality.

https://www.asurequality.com/assets/Organic-Files/organics-standard-2015-FULL-V6-Feb16.pdf

[Dennis Crowley 1022]

Think of AsureQuality as MPIs/govt auditing department, separate and have to charge to support them selves.