>
> The conclusions that can be drawn, In my opinion - again - no access to
> full article - is that the EPA recommendation of 1g is not effective, and
> needs to be "revised".
>

In the full version of the article, that is exactly the conclusion they
drew. The abstract is misleading in my opinion. At least the last sentence.

But the reason why I posed the quotes of the article is so that someone
*wouldn't *be compelled to draw conclusions based on the abstract alone. As
it is misleading.

Unless I missed it,  I didn’t see in the abstract where hive size was
> mentioned?
>

If memory serves me right, it was a deep and a medium. So one "brood
chamber" and 1g was in accordance with the label.

In my many years of using OAV 1 g was never enough. I always used 2+ grams
>
> And you've always used more than the label allowed, which is a federal
offense (although I've never known anyone actually being charged for it).

But it misses the point. The article didn't study the efficacy rates of OAV
compared to apivar, nor did it study whether the EPA approved label rates
were appropriate. It studied the difference between 1X OAV and 3X OAV when
used both with, and without brood breaks, when compared to a positive and
negative control. To say the study is "flawed" because it used the
treatment in accordance with the label is absurd. For one, it's the law,
and without special permission to use a different amount they're breaking
the law (and publishing the results). If they did get special permission,
they aren't testing the difference between 1X OAV and 3X OAV when used both
with, and without brood breaks. They are now testing whether the label
rates are appropriate. Which isn't the scope of the study, and increases
the variables which skews the results.  For two, there isn't much solid
evidence on what different dose rates should be used (the article quotes a
number of other studies that indicates effective control in the 2g to 2.25g
range, but that's based on doing some math on different hive designs and
dimensions used in Europe where the studies were done), so the researchers
would be left guessing as to what the "best" rate they should use. If they
chose 2g as opposed to 2.5g, or 5g, the study would be "flawed" for
choosing an arbitrary and random OAV dosage. The only thing they could have
done was use the label rate.

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