Hello Bill, Brian & All,
I have tried very hard to explain the issue but both you guys keep missing 
the point.

Bill said:
> My concern in this discussion is that imidacloprid was singled out as the 
> cause of CCD. It obviously has not been implicated as the cause,but

For the last time I will say :
Up to this date is no *single* thing which has been found to have caused 
CCD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why would you believe such a thing? I never singled out imidacloprid as the 
sole cause of CCD. I certainly believe some of the reported CCD losses were 
from the new neonicotinoids.

If you had read what Jerry Hayes said imidacloprid is IMPLICATED as a 
suspect cause!

Bill said:
> I also know two large scale commercial beekeepers who blamed imidacloprid 
> as the cause of all their problems, well before CCD, yet facts show 
> otherwise.

Only two?

 The CCD team has NEVER been able to say systemic pesticides are not one of 
the 4-5 suspect problems implicated as one of the possible  causes of the 
2006/2007 bee die off.

Actually the name colony collapse disorder should be changed as the name 
indicates that the die off was caused by a single cause.  I think most 
looking into the issue know that the die off  was not caused by a single 
cause. The die off of 2006-2007 has not been found to be caused by a single 
anything and in my opinion never will be!

I am still phoning beekeepers but the higher number I call the higher number 
claiming losses related to the new neonictinoids.  Tommorrow  calling two 
bootheel beekeepers. the Missouri state entomologist, commercial beekeeper 
in arkansas and another in alabama. I Spoke with David Vanderdusen and Steve 
from Canada today. Heard from  California. No hive shortage this year in 
almonds.
 Certain beeks still having troubles. Others the best bees in years!

it was not
> imidacloprid but the beekeeper.

At the Savannah ABF convention which I attended, took notes, and *recorded* 
the Beltsville Bee lab reported its finding on levels of fluvalinate and 
coumaphos in old  comb. The numbers closely matched those Kim used and Brian 
wows at.
Since then I have been involved with a 50,000 hive operation and talks with 
Beltsville over those figures. A couple of us( myself and another )decided 
to replace comb. The others chose to keep the comb with the levels Brian 
said wow about.

Today both the hives with the new comb and the contaminated comb are raising 
strong hives. In fact I lost a bet over the issue. I do not regret my choice 
to change out comb but the other beekeeper did. Replacing comb in my opinion 
is a good thing but I can say truthfully that the levels in hives treated 
with fluvalinate and coumaphos have not caused *those* beekeepers any 
problems.  The proof is in the thousands of hives using the comb and still 
producing strong colonies.

With my contacts I am very familiar with what is on those shop towels and in 
almost all cases its the same mitacides which have been registered for use 
around the world against mites. However I am in the commercial beekeeper 
loop which many beekeepers are not. Before apistan was registered the bee 
labs used those methods and taught beekeepers how to make the formula.

A higher number of tests are run in commercial beekeepers yards than has 
ever been done by the USDA-ARS and certainly with higher numbers of hives.

Here is what Beltsville said at Savannah:
If you use either mitacide over and over the amount in comb levels off at a 
certain level. The first year of use is lower than the second year but the 
fifth year is about the same as the second year. There is however a third 
spike on the mass spec machine from comb which has had both used.

I elected to remove all my comb which had ever had fluvalinate or coumaphos 
used. others did not. Six years later I can say that the beekeepers which 
did not take my advice and change comb have got hives thriving. When I asked 
researchers to explain why those beekeepers did as good as the guys which 
replaced all comb here was the answer:

Worldwide tests on high PPM of fluvalinate and coumaphos in comb only showed 
two areas of concern.
1. drone problems
2. queen rearing issues.

Now the above is of little concern to the large commercial beekeeper which 
does not rear his own queens and replaces all queens each year. Those 
beekeepers when given the choice of comb total replacement (what I did) as 
apposed to finding a few drone layers among supercedure queens chose to 
continue on with the comb on which in most cases apistan and checkmite 
legally had been used.

I know the subject was brought up in California and the USDA_ARS people said 
its a good idea to rotate comb ( I agree) and some larva kill  *might* be 
related to the fluvalinate & coumaphos comb. Interesting but not what I have 
observed.

I have said the above before but do so now for the last time. We will have 
to agree to disagree! I have received emails form other list members 
wondering why you guys do not understand what I am saying.

I have had enough ( as Aaron would say!) of this subject!

bob 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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