Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 15 Oct 2000 01:28:09 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In message <[log in to unmask]>, Allen Dick
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Board
>P/u Yard Name Sugar Result Sticky Result
>Date Shake (Mites) Board (Mites)
>
>O5 BCNE S28 0 S28
>0
>O5 BCSW S29 0 S29
>0
>O5 BCSE S29 0 S28
>13
>O5 Jahns' O5 3 O5 0
>O5 Taylors' O5 0 O5
>1
>O13 Vanovers' O10 0 O10
>28
>O13 KadarE O6 0 O6 235
>O13 KadarW O6 3 O6 235
>O13 ButlerW O10 0 O10 162
>O13 ButlerE O10 0 O10 41
>O13 Pisco O11 0 O11
>204
>O13 Hainsworth O11 0 O11
>63
>O13 Dixon Bush O11 28 O11
>421
>O10 Wilson O10 4 O10
>288
>O11 Dixon O11 8 O10 22
>O12 Beckwith's O12 5 O12
>72
>O12 Schlags Hill O10 0 O12 213
>O10 Schlag CS O10 0 O10
>2
>O13 Rattai O12 1 O12 381
>
>Key: O13 is October 13, S29 is September 29
>I would be interested in comments from scientists and extension people as well
>as beekeepers on what to make of this.
I show the table as received. I don't find it easy to follow, but make
an assumption I can read it. I suggest that there are 2 practical
variables which cause problems. Firstly, and most importantly, where
were the bees taken from in the sample of a cupful? Was it done in
exactly the same way for each hive? In other words is the sample
representative of all bees. If the mites for example are mainly on young
bees in the brood nest, then a sample from outside the brood nest would
have much less mites. If you can guesstimate the number of bees in the
samples and the numbers of bees in the hives, you can determine if the
ratio of 49 is about right or not.
The second problem is posed by the small number of mites in the samples.
12X0, 1x1, 0x2, 2x3, 1x4, 1x5, 1x8 & 1x28 indicate such a low number
that sampling variations make 0 quite common. So, multiplying factors
cannot be reliable. Working back from your apistan figures you expect 8
from the Dixon Bush measurement, so 28 is larger by a factor of 3.
Rattai is the other that is out of line with the ratio. The others are
more or less what I would expect. Also, the ratio of 49 is very
influenced by one count of 28! It would be much larger if this result
were ignored.
--
James Kilty
|
|
|