>peter said: This statement got me wondering just how many chemicals are being thrown at 
colonies by members of this list.  

I found this the other day when looking for something else, didn't read the whole article just the parts about testing retail honey.
excuse the > below but my editor put them in.

http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/15003/1/IND44027553.pdf
 
I found where the usda was testing the method that they use for testing honey in 
2008.
>
>
>
>Incurred Honey Samples. The performance of the method
>
>was evaluated with incurred honey obtained from treated
>
>beehives. For most of the analytes, two incurred levels (n ) 5)
>
>were assayed. Fumagillin and oxytetracycline residues were
>
>detected in the incurred honey, but their levels were below the
>
>validated range of the method. The highest CVs of the incurred
>
>levels are reported in Table 5. The repeatability errors for the
>
>tested analytes in the incurred honey were less than 14%.
>
>
>
>Only three
>
>of the 15 retail honeys tested were totally free from all 17
>
>antibiotics. The majority of the honeys contained either one or
>
>two of the antibiotics, and one sample had as many as four
>
>different antibiotics. The positive findings are as follows: tylosin
>
>(8), lincomycin (3), oxytetracycline (2), chloramphenicol (2),
>
>streptomycin (2), sulfathiazole (1), tetracycline (1), and danofloxacin
>
>
>now I didn't read all of the document and they didn't say where the honey came 
>from but only 2 of the above are legal in the USA that I know of, and fumidil 
>doesn't show up in any.
>
>
mike syracuse

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm