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:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Mon, 2 Aug 2004 15:21:32 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (53 lines)
> we got back reports of butyric levels in our honey...

> ...makes me wonder how much science there is behind
> a lot of residue testing, both the theory and the practice,
> and how much is just plain old fanciful extrapolation and
> other forms of guessing.

Assuming that the above was not a rhetorical rant,
it is difficult to imagine that anyone doing any form
of residue testing would indulge in "guessing".

But lying is not guessing, is it?  I would be much less
suspicious of someone who refuses to consider purchasing
your honey as a result of such testing than I would be of
someone who leverages "residues" as an excuse to offer a
lower price, or a lower-than contracted price.

Anyone testing should be able to describe at least their
equipment.  This would define the inherent limits of the
tests that were done.

For the specific case of Albertans, Beemaid was rumored
to still be using a Gas Chromatograph as recently as 2001,
which limits them to roughly a 5 ppm detection floor for
just about everything.  While I agree that one has to ask
pointed questions about "detections" that are right at the
limit of detection for the technology in use, I doubt that
anyone could cry "false positive" about results from a circa
1980s GC or GC/MS, even if the level was near 5 ppm.

Therefore, in the event of "impossible" results, I would
suspect confusion about which sample was which (or which
drums are whose) before I would suspect either the lab gear
or the technician's use thereof.

Regardless, a prudent person keeps several jars from
each extraction to use as "reference samples" in the event
of such confusion.


                jim (Flip back and forth between CSPAN-1
                 coverage of US House and Senate
                 debates and CSPAN-2 coverage of the
                 British House of Commons "Question Time"
                 sometime.  Its scary just how much
                 more articulate and better-prepared
                 Tony Blair is than any US politician
                 since Jimmy Carter has been.)

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2