> ...as Bob H has pointed out, that bees
> can often thrive on old, dark combs.

"Appear to thrive initially" would seem the more accurate phrase, but I
would offer that the hard evidence of comb testing for residues outweighs
any anecdotal reports of "thriving".  That would be a more scientific
approach to beekeeping.

>> [Toxin build-up in comb] has not seemed to
>> be a problem in practice, although in theory it
>> is.  Coumaphos definitely was a bad one that way,
>> though, and resulted in a lot of comb being culled.

I would think is more accurate to say "has not YET seemed to be a problem".


If the Coumaphos experience was not a sufficient example of a clear and
compelling "problem in practice", and an object lesson which subsequent
practices should heed, I can't imagine how we can ever learn from
experience.

>> I don't know of any commercial beekeepers who
>> currently cull comb strictly for reason of build-up
>> alone (Horace Bell did at one time, but that was
>> for different chemicals).

I thought I made it clear that I did, and still do. That's at least "one",
but this would require conceding that the term "commercial" is more properly
defined by profit ratios (ROA and ROI), as in any other business, rather
than mere numbers of boxes.

Regardless, if "a lot of comb was culled" only after the problems with
coumaphos were undeniable, then how should a businessperson in the business
of bees manage risk in the face of new chemicals with unknown downsides,
some applied by the beekeeper, some brought home by foragers?

Culling a few frames a year is almost negligible, but the kind of culling
that went on with Coumaphos was a significant hit to the operations forced
to undergo the culling.  What are the odds that Tylan and Amitraz might turn
out to be the next "coumaphos" in one way or the other, and how many
operations are willing to bet all their brood boxes that they won't?

The persistence is already identified as "exceptional" for both chemicals,
leaving only the low-level residue impact to be determined.  So that's only
one dot left to connect.


             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html