Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 9 May 1995 09:58:00 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Mike
Over the last month there have been several contributions on BEE-L
describing non-chemical varroa controls:
Apr 4 Re: Natural products...
Apr 28 ANP comb report
Apr 28 drone comb method
Apr 28 Reference s re drone method
May 3 Mite attractants
A simpler drone comb method was used by Dr Tibor Szabo at Guelph
Ontario (see ABJ Dec 1994 p 838):
Day 1: he placed a frame without foundation in position 3 of the brood
nest of ( strong) colonies. He placed another comb at day 7 and day 14.
Each week from day 21 on, he removed the oldest (day 1) comb and
replaced it with another empty frame. The colonies rapidly built drone
comb and it was filled with varroa-attracting drone larvae (10:1
worker). These combs of brood were removed and disposed of (they could
have been frozen to kill the mites, then thawed and replaced). Up to 12
combs per hive were removed (in itself a drain on the colony's, and the
beekeeper's energy) but varroa population remained low.
There are many combinations. It would be nice to see an analysis of cost
and labour for them.
I noticed beside the article on ANP combs (ABJ Feb 91, p 119 (which
indicate a reduction in varroa reproduction when using larger diameter
worker cells), an ad. for small cell size foundation by Dadant,
referring to USDA research from Tucson, that a small cell size may be
effective in controlling parasitic mites.
I had not heard of this research. Does anyone know the basis for the
statement?
Kerry Clark, Apiculture Specialist
B.C. Ministry of Agriculture
1201 103 Ave
Dawson Creek B.C.
V1G 4J2 CANADA Tel (604) 784-2225 fax (604) 784-2299
INTERNET [log in to unmask]
|
|
|