> Your mistake was the molecular weight...

Right.  Thanks.  I'm glad I asked.

Actually, I glanced at the diagram, misread it, and forgot the carbon atoms.  I was in too boo big a hurry.  Should have gone from the formula -- or read the rest of the page to which I provided a link.

So, the difference between the dihydrate and the anhydrous is 126.07 minus 90.3 or 35.77

That is about a 28% difference when based on the dihydrate or 40% based on the anyhydrous.  Those are fairly big percentages.

I frankly doubt, however, that an error of either magnitude would matter much in a typical application, since I think that the recommendations try to hit the middle of the window between the point of inefficacy and the point of harming the bees and it is at least twice that wide.

In practice, due to the inherent subjectivity and inaccuracies in the treatment, I suspect that beekeepers often give either a half or double the recommended amount without causing harm.  However, if one set out to apply a double dose, I suspect that normal errors in application process could result in damage under some conditions. 

Randy has some interesting comments on the matter and has been experimenting, I believe.  The problem is that there are many factors to consider -- locale, season, infestation levels, brood present, weather, beekeeper error, hive previous history, winter severity --and it is very difficult to arrive at definitive conclusions.

Personally, at this point, I just try to understand and follow the instructions on the Canadian label.  Experimenting is expensive in terms of potential bee loss and lost crops.

Again, thanks for straightening that out, Gavin.

             ***********************************************
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

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L