Barry Birkey wrote:
>
> Just so people are informed on this, Dr. Rodriguez's latest report posted on
> my web page was precisely on FGMO applied in fog.
> -Barry
>

The report is written in a form showing it is ready for publication. I
would very much like to see if it can be published in a peer review
journal and the findings duplicated. The work seems to describe a very
economical and effective way to control mites. In particular, the
"observation" is made that there is a good reason to test for tracheal
mite control as well.
        I have been following these threads closely during my recent
hospitalization and see where the communication breakdown occurs is in
realizing good observation is required in order to identify areas of
research. Informed observation is as important as a well done
experiment. Also, we do not expect our researchers to also delve into
the practical aspects of large scale commercial beekeeping. It would be
unfair to disallow practical beekeepers to publish astute observation
since there is no claim of scientific method. Practical method does not
always include formal control measures. If I am trying a new way to load
the bees on my trailer, I will not institute a control, I may simply
recall my past experience. Sometimes my quick conclusion is that it
didn't work here but, in this other circumstance it would be of
advantage. No need to write a paper and submit it for review. The next
time I see Art or Woody and say" Hey, I tried it this way..." They can
accept, reject or submit it for trial. Sometimes it is happily accepted.
Sometimes an item of derision. Always taken for what it is. It is never,
ever criticized for the submission as it is intended and the
observation, half-assed test or research is not miss represented as
otherwise.
        All are important and I expect all to recognize these as such, and an
expected, respected an important part of the discussion.

Thom Bradley
Chesapeake, VA

Thom's Honeybees