Olda Vancata wrote: >Who can guarantie that any of the following subsances isn't harmfull >to bees? Who will bring following substaces we don't know anything >about into the beehive? > >(see: http://probe.nal.usda.gov:8300/cgi-bin/table-maker?db=phytochemdb&defi >nition+file=chems-in-taxon&arg1=Myrtus+communis ) > > >Phytochemicals of Myrtus communis: > >"1,8-CINEOLE" "Plant" 135 2065 >"2-BUTANOL" "Plant" >"2-BUTANONE" "Plant" >"2-METHYL-BUT-3-EN-2-OL" "Plant" 200 710 Hi all, Isn't it wonderful this Bee-L? We can get so fast a lot of excellent information!! Yes, your point, dear friend, is very good. What you are requesting is correctly to be done. It will take probably 10-15 years until the classical "chemical related labs" (no offense!) will approve it, and probably several million dollars. Not to complicate this issue, just for a new sight of this problematic, has anybody from FDA tested on humans what happens with somebody which uses raw propolis or tincture, or bee bread, royal jelly from bee hives treated with Apistan and other chemical varroacids...? From the scientifical point of view, you are right. Myrtle oil can be dangerous to the bees. So can be also rose oil, mint oil, pine oil, lavender oil and so on... So, let's block any organic "movement" and continue to use happily Apistan et co. which brings slowly but sure varroa resistance to several (bio)chemical "weapons"... Let's continue to use the classical smokers which brings free radicals in our honey, free radicals which raises the risc to make cancer in our customers etc., etc. Friendly and not ironically as you may think, Stefan Stangaciu, MD, LAcup. Constanta, Romania [log in to unmask]