>I know people get tired of hearing me say we need another good synthetic
that does not harm the bees or leave residues,

If you are referring to me, that was not what I said.  I was simply
disagreeing with your saying that no one was trying to bring new products
to market.

>
> > I say it is time to face facts: they are too time consuming and
> constraining -- and they don't really work without hurting the bees.
>

Not facts; opinions.  I already pointed out the fallacy of their being too
time consuming or costly.  But certainly not as easy as a synthetic when it
first works for a few years.  And certainly rougher on bees than
fluvalinate (far less margin of safety for the correct term).

So far there have been four main successful synthetics--fluvalinate,
flumethrin, amitraz, and coumaphos.  Too many problems with other
synthetics, such as fenpyroximate.  And considerable comb contamination
with those above, other than amitraz.  But still EPA concern about amitraz
degradation products.  The public wants honey free of synthetic
chemicals--we beekeepers are constrained by that fact.

>Until we can keep bees treatment-free with some certainty of freedom from
sudden depopulations when conditions or locations change, IMO, synthetics
are the answer.

I certainly respect your "O."  The only problem is that when amitraz loses
its efficacy (as it already has in some areas), which synthetic are you
going to turn to?  Those of us who depend upon our bees to pay the mortgage
had better be familiar with a Plan B.
-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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