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
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
Date:
Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:55:04 +0200
Reply-To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
From:
Ron & Eefje <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
Dee/group,

The conclusion of the referenced study is a little strange as I see it, 
since it suddenly pulled in the sugar dusting method into the equation. 
The study itself was only showing outcomes with differing cell sizes and 
never mentioned an influence of sugar dusting anywhere.
Mind you, I do not have anything against either sugar dusting or small 
cell beekeeping but combining them in the conclusion of this study would 
only have been correct if sugar dusting had been part of this study, 
which it was not.

Ron van Mierlo

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2