In addition to New Zealand, some guys in Korea seem to have nectar
plants that result in detectable levels of phenol in honey.

http://ift.confex.com/ift/2002/techprogram/paper_14409.htm

There are lots of references that indicate that any detectable
phenol is considered "contamination" by honey importing countries,
so I wonder what would happen to honestly UNcontaminated honey from
New Zealand (or, apparently, Korea) when tested for "phenol residue".

But does anyone, anywhere still use carbolic/phenol to move bees out
of supers? I thought that even the last of the die-hards stopped using
carbolic back in the 1980s.

Canada's CFIA seems to think that phenol at 0.020 parts per million
(20 parts per billion) is cause for concern, but they also said as
recently as Summer 2002, in
http://www.agr.gov.sk.ca/docs/reports/beelines/BLsummer02.pdf

   "At such low levels, some residues could be found
    even when products have not been used in years."

Which forces a reasonable person to wonder just what they think they
are "detecting".  Could Canada also have nectar plants that produce
"natural phenol" in honey?  I dunno what sort of hardware or test
procedures  they use, but the statement may be a bad quote, or taken
out of context.  As is, it just makes no sense.  They go on to say:

    "For this reason, maximum residue levels should be
    established for oxytetracycline and some other
    chemicals that have been used in the beekeeping
    industry to insure that safe levels are not deemed
    to be hazardous and impact a beekeeper's operations."

This is a real head-scratcher.  Maybe it is a real knee-slapper.
They are "detecting" things like Tetracycline, Oxytetracycline,
and Chlortetcycline, and they think that they are detecting "residues"
from use in the PAST?  I'd sure like to hear about the mechanism or
process by which this could happen, as it should be clear that, unlike
phenol, there is no possible "natural" source of these chemicals.
So, this either:

a) Would appear to force beekeepers to scrap woodenware dating
   from the 1970s and 1980s.

b) Is evidence that Canada has perfected analysis techniques
   unknown to the general worldwide scientific community.

c) Indicates that the analysis folks have a stash of really
   gooood stuff up at the lab, and need to stop "testing"
   it on their lunch hours.

But phenol is very volatile, so it is hard to imagine honey
being contaminated by "environmental pollution". Small amounts
of airborne phenol would volatilize away in a day or two. In the
soil, phenol would remain detectable for 2 to 6 days. In water,
we are looking at 10 to 15 days, but it can be taken up and
metabolized by creatures that live in the water.

But maybe some folks still have and use phenol.  Without naming
names, can anyone confirm this?

Also, what's the record for comb longevity in honey super
applications?  I've never tried to "go for the record", but
I'd guess that anything approaching a decade would be very rare.


                jim

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::