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
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date:
Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:05:10 -0400
Reply-To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
Sender:
Comments:
To: Dee Lusby <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
Dee Lusby wrote:

>So small cell was actually
>bigger then the feral in usage and what we wanted to do in
>usage and we/I split the sheet and went smaller......
>
>This would have bearing on the results quoted here for the
>S. African experiments done with Small Cell bought
>originally made and IMPOV would account for the bigger mite
>load seen

According to my information, South African foundation is based on a cell
size of 4.7 mm which is smaller than what you advocate

> The Hortresearch trial used five different types of wax foundation with
cell imprints 4.7mm, 4.8mm, 5.0mm, 5.1mm and 5.4mm (standard size) in
diameter. The South Canterbury branch supplied the 5.1mm and 5.4mm
foundation, the 4.7mm foundation was obtained from South Africa and the
4.8mm and 5.0mm foundations from the United States. 

http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/biobeefiles/pav/scstudy.htm

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2