Thanks, Gene for the link.

From my reading:

> However, it is intriguing that amitraz-coated foundation did not cause lower Varroa levels in our study, given that it is still an effective treatment for Varroa control in the U.S.....

Why would this be intriguing?  Applying an amitraz acetone spray combination the way it was done in this study is not a method, I'm aware of, that's used to control varroa and I would not have expected it to do so.

There's also an unanswered question that this spray method worked for any of the study's applications since the wax, as far as I can tell, was not tested post-treatment for residues.  I agree that it should have worked, but documentation that the wax actually accumulated the toxins would have strengthened the study IMO.  

Which brings me to my general skepticism about studies that apply "field relevant" dosages in spray or direct application methods that do not occur naturally. The assumption is that lab designed application methods simulate the accumulation process that occurs naturally and that the resulting wax cell, in terms of toxin concentration and distribution, is the same as occurs in cells with toxin collection over time. My assumption is that we don't know enough about the variables that occur in the "field" to accurately simulate relevant conditions. Ideally, a study that used old naturally contaminated comb would come closer. 




Bill Hesbach
Cheshire CT

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