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
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Message-ID:
Sender:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Tim Hiatt <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:17:33 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
All,

I ran a comparison of Apivar, Apistan, and Hopguard 2 at the end of
September last year in North Dakota. The groups had 25, 5, 12 hives
respectively with 16 controls, 58 total. Stickies underneath for three days
for the natural mite drop, then treatments were put on with new stickies
for nine days.

Average 24 hour mite drop for the four groups, pre-treatment: 108, 102,
104, and 103 for the control hives. (I know that's high. At least the
pre-treatment mite load was equal between the groups.) Average 24 hour mite
drop for the four groups, at the end of nine days with treatments in place:
37, 50, 45, and 26 for the controls.

I'm puzzled why the 24 hour drops would decrease with treatments on. I
didn't measure the hive strength beforehand, but I don't recall the hives
seeming any less populous at the end of treatment. Any ideas?

Tim Hiatt
eastern Washington

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