> I wrote this up some time ago, had a hard time getting the post
> accepted, only an appeal to another moderator got it through. Perhaps
> we should examin the archives??

Good idea. I think it has pretty well all been said there.

This particular post to which I am replying right now -- if some do not know --
is, I believe, by a *dealer* for Liquid Smoke, telling us it is wonderful.
Maybe it is.  I only know that I have encountered honey contamination problems
with similar products and advise caution.

AFAIK, the product is not, AFAIK, approved for use in beehives or for addition
to honey, yet that is what is being recommended.  Nor is it traditional and thus
'grandfathered' like natural smoke.  (Read the archives for caveats about
over-use of natural smoke and for warnings about choice of smoker fuels).
Anyone using Liquid Smoke or any other such product must be aware that honey
analysis is getting more and more precise -- to the point where some of the
natural constituents in 'organic' honey are getting rejections batches of honey
by regulators.

Differences of opinion are accepted and welcomed here on BEE-L, however when a
post seems to be promoting, rather than discussing a product or practice, the
moderators have a responsibility to try to balance the input for fairness.

> Mind, I didn't have a control hive during my manipulations.

Well maybe you should have.  A spray bottle of water might have been every bit
as good and non-contaminating.  And if it wasn't, you'd be able to say so.

> ;-))

Some of us take honey purity seriously.

And, sure, keep on posting, but please get rid of the chip.

allen