>The numbers in the text, in the table, and in the chart don't agree.

Pete, it seemed that way to me at first too.  But the table and the figure
represented different data, so the numbers wouldn't be the same.  Best to
look at Fig. 5 in order to interpret.  Compare "requeen" vs "untreated."

> Also, there was no follow up to see if the reductions made a difference
long term.

There wasn't as far as post the oxalic treatment, but that's not what we
were discussing (I have plenty of data that confirms that oxalic treatment
during a brood break is quite effective).  What we were discussing was the
brood break alone-- the time points (although they could have been better
specified) were adequate for that purpose.

When I run efficacy trials (I've been running quite a few of late), I like
to wait at least 14 days post treatment, since there will be mites emerging
from the brood (and generally unaffected by treatment) for 12 days.  If one
is determining efficacy from alcohol washes, then one should wait until a
new phoretic:brood mite equilibrium is established (wait around 30 days).
I also like to do follow ups at around 60 days to detect long-term
sublethal effects on mite behavior.

Best, of course, would be to do alcohol wash and open 100 brood cells,
measure brood area and weigh the adult bee population in order to estimate
total mites in the hive, and then to repeat again after treatment.  But
that is quite time consuming.

A useful addition is to also do stickyboard counts to determine the
increase in mite fall due to treatment.
-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
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