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:
littlewolfbees apis mellifera <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:50:40 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (39 lines)
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Baker's Bees <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Reading the latest post on Bee Culture Magazine I ran into the following
> troubling thought:
>
> "Canadian beekeepers are currently concerned about mites developing
> resistance to amitraz and thymol and exhibited efficacy rate below 30% when
> used under fall conditions1.”
>
>
>
Not quite clear with so many "and" which one in  your thought of low
> efficacy rate you're referring to. I guess it's thymol


Apivar has a high efficacy without resistance if used correctly.

So two things,  Hygenic bees,  e.g. Russian most hygienic et al would allay
thoughts/fears about the efficacy situation /treatment
                       and most important
                       Run the Pettis test which will verify on the spot
resistance to whatever.
But as usual , most will ask What is the Pettis test?

Questions
how many out there even ask about traceability of stock,  the queens one
buys and the hygenic figures?
or how many do bother with hygenic testing (which is simple ) in their own
yards and treat (if any) if necessary?

Walter
littlewolfapiaries.com

             ***********************************************
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