Skip Navigational Links
LISTSERV email list manager
LISTSERV - COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM
LISTSERV Menu
Log In
Log In
LISTSERV 17.5 Help - BEE-L Archives
LISTSERV Archives
LISTSERV Archives
Search Archives
Search Archives
Register
Register
Log In
Log In

BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Menu
LISTSERV Archives LISTSERV Archives
BEE-L Home BEE-L Home

Log In Log In
Register Register

Subscribe or Unsubscribe Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Search Archives Search Archives
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
[log in to unmask]
Date:
Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:01:27 -0500
Reply-To:
"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: Mite "Thresholds"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Organization:
Bedford Advanced Technology Test Lab Effort
From:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (49 lines)
Bob made good points, as we all expect him to:

> Dr. Delaplane at Savannah explained that the *figures* presented
> in the post applied to an *average* strength hive...

And what makes an "average" strength hive?  The only consistent metric
I have seen for measuring strength is "number of frames of brood".

What might have been more useful would have been:

a)  A set of "threshold for a colony with x frames of brood" type figures.
    (Some sort of "weak", "normal", and "strong" differentiation.)

b)  Some sort of "delta brood" versus "delta mites" figures, as this
     is the only way to estimate mites "getting out of hand" versus
     a mite population that has merely increased numerically, and
     not excessively in contrast to bee population growth.

Dunno why Delaplane and Hood did not qualify their data this way,
since they were certain to have a mix of "strong", "average", and
"weak" hives in their dataset.

> ...in *fall* in Georgia with a certain amount of leeway ( tests taken
> after most brood rearing had stopped).

Wait until AFTER brood rearing stops to test for mites?
Isn't that just a bit late in the game?
By then, any colonies with serious varroa infestation are dead or doomed,
and the varroa population clearly cannot further increase.
The surviving colonies, lacking brood, would be difficult to "size" on
anything other than a gestalt basis (number of top bars covered with bees?).

I was under the impression that the mission-critical decision to make comes
well before fall, and involves pulling a colony out of production to "save" it.
This decision must be made well prior to harvest, when varroa counts are
ramping up to a serious level in contrast to the colony bee population, or
ramping up faster than any increase in bee population could explain away.

Of course, at the current price of honey, one is forced to wonder where the
financial "break-even" point has moved, where leaving colonies in production,
and then replacing varroa kills with fall splits would be "smarter management".


                jim

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV