Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:46:24 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Allen Dick wrote:
For the multiplying by 3 to be correct the white areas must be one
third of the whole. FWIW, IMO this is not rocket science.
Of couse i agree with you completely. I hadn't looked at the math
formula closely and have to admit I hadn't noticed the same result could
be had by multiplying by 3( as Donald did). I am sure the other formula
was intended to make to board seem complicated instead of just saying
only count i/3 of the squares and multiply by 3 for the mite total.
Also the way the 2/3 are blacked gives the appearance of a system
carefully designed when in truth any 2/3 could have been used because a
guess (or average) is what we are talking about.
I was given the board to evaluate and report to the beekeepers club. So
far i guess very few beekeepers have even seen the Penn state board.
One improvement i can see right away is to use a light color for the
darkened squares so all mites could be counted on the board if needed.
Being a admirer of Diana Sammataro and believe her book *The Beekeepers
Handbook* a excellent book for beginning beekeepers I believe the
*varroa board* to be a useful tool for beekeepers wanting a top of the
line detector insert for those wanting the most accurate mite
information. I also agree with Allen a simple white board and counting
all the mites will produce the same result. Having 2/3 of the squares
not to count surely would speed up the process for bee researchers
wanting mite counts but shouldn't researchers doing research be COUNTING
all the mites? I might add that its possible down the road we WILL
need accurate counts. One never knows. If you were wanting a accurate
count on say a hundred hives and were counting the mites then being able
to have to count only i/3 of the mites pin head size might be a big time
saver. In the spring i will test the accuracy of counting only 1/3 and
multipling by 3. They check method is not rocket science but will
include for archives. Count the 1/3 and multiply by 3 for total. Count
all the mites and compare to check accuracy. I will bet result is very
close or Diana Summataro & N. Ostiguy wouldn't have designed and
recommend the board.
I *mite* add i do up to( not allways and maybe only one hive in a yard)
five sticky board tests a year. I would recommend for a hobby beekeeper
with only a couple hives to do all five if in known varroa area.
1. comming out of winter(make sure last winter treatments worked)
2. At end of spring treatment(if you did spring treatments)
3. late summer(this may or may not be neccessary depending on your
varroa control but i would recommend if using IPM controls)
3A. If natural fall of mites is heavy pull supers and treat or lose
hives. In cases of reinfestation may allready be to late as mites are
difficult to count at this time as most are in sealed cells.
4.early fall(check to see mite loads before treating to decide on method
of treatment)
5. end or two weeks into fall treatments(to make sure treatment is
working)
Sounds like quite a bit of work? So is cleaning out deadouts and
replacing hives.
6. Another option. Dee Lusby method.
Let hives not able to survive varroa die and breed from survivors. Use
4.9mm foundation. I have not used her method(yet)but feel it wouldn't
be fair in putting forth ways to check chemical controls without giving
those advocating the stopping the use of ALL chemicals and drugs in our
hives. Information can be found on these methods in the archives and at
Barry Birkeys web site.
http://www.beesource.com
Happy Thanksgiving!
Bob
|
|
|