Sender: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:27:16 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
<022001d0cbbe$8826bfd0$98743f70$@com> |
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
For the record, it seems I misspoke in Referencing Dr. Smarts work , The
apiaries that were established contained 48 hives each, not 12. My
apologies It was not intentional. HIS observations were as noted. Just
the number was incorrect.
Original quote
"The other is hive loading. In work such as the smart paper, we saw yards
that did great, and yards that did poorly. One of the worst yards in that
report averaged around 50lbs of surplus (note it was put in a obviously
terrible area) That yard had 12 hives. Would it have show better if there
were only 2??"
It was also pointed out the number of "2" as possible would not fit a
commercial operation. I am not sure how that got misinterpreted, but it
did. My statement was to imply the some areas may do well with only a few
hives in a given area, vs many. If we are to look at the fauna and use of
given land, we also need to look at the loading aspect of it. You can put
a cow per acre in great pasture, and 1 cow in 10 acres in poor ground.
My point was to look at the overall picture instead of trying to define the
narrow field of "land use" and quantifying the load at the same time.
Again, My apologies for what appears to be a poor communication on my part.
Charles
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|