BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Johann (Hans) Popodi" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 29 May 1997 17:39:36 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
Further to the posting of today re:  Nassenheider Device, Homesote and
Popodi Device, I would like to add the following:
 
I would to thank Allen Dick for the creation of his web page which allows
for the circulation of such material.
 
I think it is extremely important to note, with regard to the formal testing
the VTD underwent, the results of that field study were inconclusive.  To
make a long story short, devices placed in the test colonies had their vents
closed with propolis and were poorly maintained.  With the vent obstructed,
the formic acid cannot properly evaporate.  A mesh screen easily solves the
problem although the need to implement this solution has not arisen.  The
results of the independent tests were quite favorable in spite of the
abnormal conditions.
 
Thank you.
 
Best regards,
 
Hans Popodi

ATOM RSS1 RSS2