BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Kilty <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:16:35 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
In message <[log in to unmask]>, Christopher Reed
<[log in to unmask]> writes

Correction (I have reread the article I referred to!)
Interesting that Johansson and Johansson recommend 61% which is close
enough to 6kg to 4l for the autumn feed as it gives the *best
conversion* should be "highest concentration without risk of granulation
in the feeder"; *61%* I cannot find in the article so I must suppose my
memory was faulty on this too as both 64% and 60% are mentioned, which
is slightly contradictory. Sorry for the correction: the article throws
figures at the reader and it is hard to draw some of them together to
identify best practice in all respects. It does make for challenging
reading as regards the benefit to bees of different types of feeding,
many of which are claimed to be of dis-benefit to bees and harvests yet
may be in fairly widespread use. It would be nice if the List could
recommend an updated equally comprehensive review article, readily
available.
--
James Kilty

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2