...
If there was a surplus 2 boxes of stores, unfit for human consumption it would seem sensible to remove frames of stores from this double brood (for extraction) and feed back the 'reject' stuff as winter stores. It seems to me to be a case of using double brood rather inefficiently.
...
I think there's general agreement that Autumn would be the best time to reintroduce reject frames.
But I think the OP was reluctant to put shallow frames into his double deep brood, and didn't think that in Autumn stores would be promptly moved up from an entire shallow placed under his double deep. {My guess is that they might, but not as surely as they might from bruised frames, offered 'above and outside the hive' (ie above the crown board or in a feeder) from where they should be happily 'robbed'.}
There seems to be some confusion about the fitness for human consumption question.
Personally, I'd reject it - but I'm not sure that's necessary.
As I noted before, FERA/DEFRA specifically say that Apistan (and Bayvarol) can be used during a honey flow.
I have a download of a (US) Apistan instruction/safety sheet with the following paragraph -
"Do not place strips in direct contact with combs
containing honey intended for human consumption.
After treatment, do not use beeswax for human
consumption (including honeycomb, chunk honey,
and wax for confectionary purposes)."
So, if the strips are in the brood box, honey from the supers should be OK - but not the wax! Which to me suggests that there are significant residues in the wax... and, quite apart from any human health questions, it implies long-lasting low level exposure for the mites, with surprise, surprise, the consequent selection of resistant mites!
But I'm not surprised that Bayer would suggest that honey that had been anywhere near a rival product (Apistan) was unfit!
