BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Peter L Borst <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:36:04 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
> Plenty of recent studies with N ceranae support that fumagillin can be of benefit.

Again, this can hinge on the words. "Can be of benefit". Is this the same as saying the treatment is worthwhile? You have to consider the following

1) Cost. Do benefits justify high cost of treatment?

2) Risk. Fumagillin has been shown to be genotoxic in humans.

3) Benefit. Plenty of work shows that N. ceranae does not affect wintering. Some work shows that fumagillin is not effective.

4) Contamination. European Union has zero tolerance for antibiotics, for a good reason. 

I think it's ironic that on the one hand, US beekeepers want to follow the European lead and ban neon's -- at the same time as they want to use chemicals that are banned for use in hives. 

Furthermore, they completely forget that the current high price of honey is directly connected to the rejection of Chinese honey due to antibiotics for which there is a zero tolerance in honey in the US. 

So beekeepers think it's OK to reject honey with chloramphenicol if it benefits them, but they should be allowed put fumagillin in hives even though it may be harmful to humans and might do nothing for the colonies at all. 

Pete

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2