Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="UTF-8" |
Date: |
Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:09:29 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Message-ID: |
|
Sender: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> Pete, I'm not understanding. Were your virus tests for a yard average, or for that specific hive?
The virus was for one hive, taken as a sample of one. But it was an average hive for that yard
> A 5% infestation 4 weeks after a good mite treatment strongly suggests that the mite count was rather high prior to treatment,
But it wasn't that high, as I have already said twice. I would say that the treatment wasn't very effective, that's why we did it again. But the numbers were never very high.
I have a copy of the results from New York - Hobbyists, Sept. 1, 2016 - Oct. 31, 2016. The range they cite is from less than 1% infestation to 12%.
What I am thinking is that DWV was astronomical despite the varroa levels being at or slightly above the threshold of 3-4%
PLB
***********************************************
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
|
|
|