----- Forwarded by Medhat Nasr/AAFRD on 05/29/2003 12:24 PM -----
Medhat Nasr
05/29/2003 08:06 AM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
cc:
Subject: Re: COMMERCIAL QUEENS & COUMAPHOS
Jim asked few questions. Here are my answers:
Q: Can you confirm that all the colonies from which the
samples were taken were treated strictly per instructions?
Answer
I was at Rutgers University. A beekeeper reported queen failure problem. I
started a project to find the causes of queen failure. He has used
checkmite strips for four years. He used the strips as instructed in the
label. When I worked on his bees, I found the regular CheckMite strips,
NOT the OTHER GENERIC Strips. By the way, after the four years of using
CheckMite, Varroa mites in his operation developed resistance to
Coumaphos. The efficacy of CheckMite was 19%. We tested Apistan in his
operation, we got 75% Varroa kill. Therefore, he had to stop using the
checkMite strips and started using Apistan in 2002. Last year and this
year, he did not report the unusual queen failure as in previous years.
We also checked if queen quality could be the cause of failure. We did not
find a significant problem with most of queens to cause early queen
supersedure followed by failure.
> Coumaphos was found in 83% of honey samples with a range >3-8 ppm.
Q:When you say "honey samples", do you mean jars of final product,
or specific samples of honey taken from brood comb areas?
Answer:
A: Yes, honey samples was from honey jars from the shelf to be used by
consumers. (Honey+coumaphos would make any user feel excited and good,
eh!)
Q: If the "samples" were harvested honey, does this mean that over half
of coumaphos users can expect to harvest honey that is from 30 to 80
times the US "legal limit"? (Say it ain't so, please!)
Answer: I would say NO; Not to please Jim. It depends on the age of the
combs in the brood chamber and honey supers. and how much Coumaphos has
been accumulated in the wax. Honey samples collected from another source
where there were low levels of coumaphos in the brood chamber combs, did
not have coumaphos or had up o 25 ppb (research results were done after
publishing my abstract).
Q: The US EPA tolerance for coumaphos in wax is a whopping 100 ppm.
(See the same link, above)
a) If 45 ppm in wax is associated with queen failures
b) and 23 ppm does not seem to have overt short-term effects
One starts plotting curves in one's head of how long before
foundation made from recycled wax becomes universally toxic
to bees.
Answer It is a good question. Research is going on to check effects of
coumaphos on queen production. Sofar higher levels of coumaphos (100ppm)
in the wax used for making queen cups had damaging effect on acceptance of
queen cells. I am continuing some research here to answer the very same
question.
Medhat
Medhat Nasr, Ph. D.
Provincial Apiculturist
Pest Risk Management Unit
Crop Diversification Centre North
RR 6, 17507 Fort Road
Edmonton, AB, Canada T5B 4K3
Tel: (780) 415-2314 Fax: (780) 422-6096
Mailto:[log in to unmask]
"James Fischer" <[log in to unmask]>
05/28/2003 04:30 PM
Please respond to jfischer
To: <[log in to unmask]>
cc:
Subject: Re: COMMERCIAL QUEENS & COUMAPHOS
Medhat Nasr said:
> High levels of coumaphos (Average= 45.53 ppm, n= 8) were found
> in wax samples from colonies where failing queens were found
> and subleathal toxicity to bees were observed. Wax samples (n=8)
> collected from good active colonies had an average of 23.66 ppm
> coumaphos.
I saw your abstract, and had a few questions about it.
Can you confirm that all the colonies from which the
samples were taken were treated strictly per instructions?
I ask because any talk of unusual levels of contamination
are often met with the claim that such levels must have been
the result of "misuse" or "unapproved formulations".
(Great marketing strategy, eh? Blame your customers.)
> Coumaphos was found in 83% of honey samples with a range >3-8 ppm.
When you say "honey samples", do you mean jars of final product,
or specific samples of honey taken from brood comb areas?
In 2000, the US EPA set a tolerance for coumaphos in honey at
0.1 ppm (one tenth part per million, aka "100 parts per billion").
http://www.honey.com/pressrm/research/coumaphos.html
If the "samples" were harvested honey, does this mean that over half
of coumaphos users can expect to harvest honey that is from 30 to 80
times the US "legal limit"? (Say it ain't so, please!)
Even if the "samples" were taken from the brood area, what are the
odds that the same few drops of honey could be moved to the supers,
harvested, and end up being "sampled" during a honey test?
(OK, it is a bit of a long shot, but who wants to bet their entire
crop on it?)
The US EPA tolerance for coumaphos in wax is a whopping 100 ppm.
(See the same link, above)
a) If 45 ppm in wax is associated with queen failures
b) and 23 ppm does not seem to have overt short-term effects
One starts plotting curves in one's head of how long before
foundation made from recycled wax becomes universally toxic
to bees.
I don't use coumaphos, but from your numbers, I must conclude
that I may soon be unknowingly exposing my bees to coumaphos
simply by buying foundation.
One hopes that the makers of foundation will "wake up" to this
problem, and start testing wax before they use it to make
foundation, but this will eliminate the "trade your wax for
foundation" game, as smaller lots of wax are not "worth" the
expense of such testing.
jim
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
