 
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=utf-8 |
| Date: |
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:34:18 -0600 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| In-Reply-To: |
|
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
| Sender: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> On Mar 16, 2018, at 1:45 PM, Seth Charbonneau <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Only about 4% of the "back yard" (50 and under club) ran alcohol washes, those that didn't took 40% higher losses
Interestingly, those that ran powdered sugar rolls, had the same amount of losses as those who did not do the sugar roll (although it’s not clear to me if this means they may have monitored using another method). It doesn’t seem to matter if it was back yard, or commercial beekeepers, or what time period you are looking at.
I wonder if this is because of the efficacy of the sampling method itself, poor technique by the administrators of the test, or something about those that do sugar rolls that prevent them from following through with treatment or regular monitoring.
David Baker
To Bee or Not To Bee
Denver, CO USA
***********************************************
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
|
|
|
