>I appreciate the civil nature of the discussion and is an important
discussion with many lurkers listening.

Hi Bob, yes I want to keep this discussion on friendly terms!  And yes, I'm
getting a barrage of emails from lurkers!


>Most of the largest used legal methods. Most commercial (like myself) used
> apistan & checkmite!. Apistan worked great and was easy to apply. When
> resistance started checkmite was the obvious next step.
>

Not out here in the West--Mavrik was quickly adopted, and the dose simply
ramped up each year.
Coumaphos was also widely used off label in the US, but especially in other
countries in the form of Asuntol and other formulations.

>
>
> >The problem as I posted earlier is not fluvalinate or coumaphos as it is
> the
> chemical which happens when both are present in the comb wax.
>

Bob, I already posted Dr Jeff Pettis' reply to this.  He said that there was
no new chemical formed.  The synergy found by Reed Johnson was due to the
same enzyme being necessary for the degradation of both chemicals.

>
>
> >Coumaphos contamination comes form one source. Bayer Crop Science and
> checkmite strips (packing a full 1.4 gram of coumaphos per strip).


Yes, as I've stated in my articles, that's enough to kill an adult male
human!

>The symptoms described as CCD all fit various known beekeeping issues.

There are many large beeks and researchers who would disagree.


>So the solution is to keep printing money or borrowing from China to
> continue the search for the "pathogen at the end of the rainbow".


As far as I know, there are few still looking for a pathogen.  But those who
are are finding very interesting things!  Bob, I hardly think that all
research money has been well spent.  But I'm careful about dismissing the
efforts of some very knowledgable, hardworking researchers who are great
contributors to our industry.

>
>  >I sure wish U.S. researchers would have discovered earlier as would have
> saved me a bunch of money. Been  in the U.S. how long?


In the US at least 15 years, in Canada, at least 10.  As you may recall, I
strongly questioned you when you came out strongly stating the importance of
N ceranae.

>
>
> >Bob, I never said that anyone stated that coumaphos was a good thing.  I
>
>> merely reported some surprising actual data.
>>
>
> >Data which contradicts all published research.


Indeed, that's why I used the word "surprising."

>
>
> >I at least read the studies and take a position. Sitting on the fence is
> what birds do.


Not going to bite on that one!  I'm a data guy.  I report on the data, and
don't take positions based upon conjecture.

>
> >Quote from page 22 of the Reed Johnson article speaking to research of
> Frazier:
> "It should come of no surprise that chemical analysis of brood wax
> collected
> from CCD and healthy colonies were always found to contain coumaphos and
> tau
> fluvalinate "( Frazier et al. 2008)
>

Bob, all foundation in the US contains those chemicals.  Therefore,
virtually all hives will, CCD or not.

>
> >It seems there are those which admit to using checkmite and others which
> say
> my high levels must have been picked up off plants.
>

Low levels are apparently picked up off of plants.

Bob, I'm not in disagreement with you in any way about the problem with
miticide-contaminated combs--my articles attest to that.  I've state that
Checkmite was a huge mistake.

>
> >A new pathogen was the first thing looked for but no cigar.
>

As I stated before, new pathogens were found.  Several have not yet been
published.  Your cigar may yet be coming!


> > Only in areas. I like to give credit where credit is due and I thank
> jerry brumenshenk for
> the advice on removing nosema spores from equipment with Clorox water.
>

You should actually give that credit to Jerry's associate, Dr Robb Cramer.


> >However the drench
> seemed to help but in my case it took spraying the frames with a clorox
> solution to eliminate the problem.
>

Bob, this is of great interest to me.  I'm wondering if the benefit was due
to Clorox killing nosema spores, or due to killing a nosema synergist.  Did
you actually check and notice a difference in spore counts after bleach
treatment, or did you simply no longer notice a problem?  This is a genuine
question that I am trying to gain knowledge from you, and would appreciate a
careful answer.

Most beeks that I know of have not used bleach, and yet N ceranae appears to
be less of a problem.  So I'm still sitting on the fence with the birds.

Thank you Bob for your answers!

Randy

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