At 5:55 -0700 1/22/02, BEEHAVER wrote:
>There is far more science on Jim's side than on the NZ side.

Would you care to cite? So far, Jim only referred to the New Zealand
study, which does not support his assertions.

Initially, I was criticizing someone who said the *only* treatment he
used was to pull a few frames from the hives and let them get better
on their own. No scientist would support this. If you read over what
I have said, I have made no personal recommendations. Follow state
laws.

>Moreover the flow patterns in some regions make inspection at time of honey
>removal extremely unpleasant and awkward, if not impossible.  Matching
>supers to hives may be paractical in some places, but not feasible in
>others.

Actually, if you read the study, they state that the supers can be
marked, then the hives inspected. If the apiary is clean, then the
supers can be unmarked. If a hive is diseased, then you will know
which supers are contaminated. This would represent very little
trouble at all. You can number the hives and mark the hive number on
the super with a crayon.

>The NZ approach may be optimal for NZ, but may be the high cost solution
>when compared to other possibilities for other countries.

Just what are the possibilities you referring to? How about some specifics?

PB