Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="utf-8" |
Date: |
Mon, 19 Apr 2021 19:51:49 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Message-ID: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Sender: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>>> You can get a very low mite fall from a large colony with low mite levels,
or a very small colony with elevated mite levels.
>> And the treatment decision for either scenario is the same, Q.E.D.
> I don't follow this unless the answer is treat now, regardless.
The problem is that the minimum sensitivity of the test equals or exceeds the minimum "threshold" for treatment.
While this is not such a big deal for those willing to tolerate a double-digit loss percentage each year and with sufficient scale to stay ahead of that loss rate, it has been the cause of far too many repeated complete losses in smaller apiaries.
I tire of having beekeepers who bring or email me their notebook, and say "I follow all the recommendations, but I still suffer [40% 50% 70%] losses. I'm doing everything I am advised, why do I keep losing so many hives?"
I can only say that they need to react sooner, and/or repeat treatments to account for brood emergence.
What I am starting to say is what I said originally - "Thresholds are Bunk".
We are screening for varroa, counting is pretending to measure something that is only seems a consistent and reliable measurement "on average".
***********************************************
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
|
|
|