-- Bill Truesdell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>... what was stated was that beekeeper introduced pesticides can be found in trapped pollen and so far, all that has been shown is that agricultural pesticides can be found in trapped 
pollen, and beekeeper and agricultural pesticides in pollen in the hive.

bill, you are incorrect.  maryann frazier stated this clearly in the video hosted on our site...there isn't any ambiguity wrt this.



>So, from what has been presented so far, the question remains, what studies have shown that Apistan, cumophose 
and the like are in trapped pollen that come from outside the colony. 

the penn state study.

>Even then, how do you discern pesticide origins, even in trapped pollen, since several miticides are used in agriculture?

wrt fluvalinate and coumaphos, i can't think of a pathway that would get them from other ag applications into trapped pollen.  maryann frazier surmised that the bees were so contaminated, they were contaminating the pollen before it entered the hive.  i suppose one would need to look at untreated hives in comparison (ones out of flight range of treated hives).


>And, if we get back to what started it all, the post stated that beekeeper introduced pesticides are in honey supers. Since supers are supposed to be off during and after treatment, there should not be much of anything.

i can't imagine that the penn state team would test for chemicals in the hive during a time when they were being applied.  if we assume that they did not do this, then the data wrt trapped pollen would suggest that either the bees or the honey/nectar they are using to mat down the pollen for transport are contaminated durring non-treatment periods.  how would this not be in the honey supers?

>So far, that seems to be generally true. If not, then it is certainly under the radar.

the problem with "the radar" is that it all depends on who is manning it, and what they are looking for.  the nhb largely funded the work at penn state.  the vast, vast majority of the beekeepers represented by the nhb use treatments.  the funding included testing of comb, foundation, beebread, trapped pollen, bees, brood...but not honey.  can you imagine why, given positive results for beekeeper introduced chems in all of the tests, why one would not test the honey?

deknow

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************