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:
T & M Weatherhead <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 29 May 2003 05:05:40 +1000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
James Fischer wrote

> I don't think anyone who has to deal with varroa mites would say
> that the "sugar shake" was as "reliable" a test as an ether roll
> when attempting to detect a low-level infestation.

I would agree but nowadays with Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) ether
seems to be a no no unless you dress up in a space suit and you are licenced
to use ether.  New Zealand did some work to show that a double sugar shake
increase the "detectability" a great percentage.  At least if we do
something it is better than nothing, having in mind OH&S requirements.

OH&S is now going to ends where I found out that in one State in Australia,
beekeepers will now have to do a risk management plan for all sorts of
things such as if a person comes onto your property, you must have a plan in
place, written down for inspection, in case that person gets stung.  Getting
a bit over the top????

Trevor Weatherhead
AUSTRALIA

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ATOM RSS1 RSS2