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:
"E.t. Ash" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:55:13 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (13 lines)
A Mr Borst snip...
I have never been a fan of sticky boards and mite drops.

Et replies...
We have largely stopped using these at the Texas A&M Bee Lab (Rangel Lab).  I cannot say I ever cared for this process myself.

Some of the earliest articles I read in the ABJ concerning counting varroa (using three different methods and I think dating back to the late 1980) suggest to me directly that ALL the methods used at that time were subject to being highly inaccurate.  Quite literally any of the usable field monitoring methods would only give you 1/3 of the varroa in the sample itself (the samples were later reexamined in the lab with a scope to get some idea of total varroa count in the sample).  I should add here that proper statistical methods informs me that taking one sample to estimate a population still leaves you with a confidence level of 0 (ie n-1).  So to remedy this problem you simply need to do multiple samples of the same hive.  This is of course add to the time required for monitoring and at least at some scale of honeybee may make this remedy impractical.      

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2