David Eyre wrote:
 Perhaps in future we should all keep our
> *observations* to ourselves?  The old beekeepers used to do this
> before Bee-L and the information age, from which we all benefit.
>         Therefore, I would suggest criticism for the sake of criticism, is
> distructive rather than constructive.

This is not intended to be critical, but some old timer's
observations can get you into as much trouble as those from an
uninformed newbee. And when it is passed on as the way to do it
to a new beekeeper, the results can be one less beekeeper keeping
bees. I have seen that too often in Maine.

I did not treat for varroa at any time this year. I had no
varroa. My observation is that you do not need to treat for
varroa. From this I can surmise that no treatment is an excellent
way to control varroa.

That is why you need controls. One piece of advice we give to all
new beekeepers is to have two hives so you can compare. Otherwise
you have no idea if the one hive is doing good or bad.

My concern is only with absolutes- the statement  "I am left with
a simple conclusion, FGMO works, to produce good results as the
hive gets bigger, either increase the volume or frequency of the
treatment."

Dr. R ran tests of the same method of application and abandoned
it since it did not work. So we have two observations and two
separate conclusions.

Again, no criticism intended.

Bill Truesdell