I appreciate the relplies.  Several things struck me as -- I'm looking for the word -- odd?

After years of reading studies and listening to presentations and having been involved in a few experiments myself, and seen how messy data can still make be made into nice looking charts, I've grown somewhat sceptical. 

> c.- to high temperature and too low RH% for any treatment.

That is interesting.  I only use OA in the late fall, so have not been aware of these limitations.  Please comment more.

>e.- too low "natural drop" on control colonies for hives with no treatment after one year.

I could not make sense of the dropped mites I added up and the conclusions reached.

If I understood the area of open brood correctly, I have to wonder what sort of hives these were.

>f.- it is not stated the date when coumaphos was applied.

Or the results.

I like to see the raw data, and am suspicious when the conclusions are given without sufficient background to verify their plausibility.

> They seem to have lost 0.2 of a percent somewhere, careless of them.

Not too reassuring.

> One thing no-one seems to have taken into account is the rather nit-picking fact that the 75g of oxalic acid will increase the volume of 1kg sugar plus 1l water beyond the 1670 ml cited.  I don't know what that volume increase will be, but if it is around half of the weight of oxalic acid then 1670 ml becomes 1707.5.  So, 75g in 1 kg plus 1 litre (or liter if you prefer) would now not be 4.5% but 4.4%, and after a correction for the water in the oxalic acid this becomes not 3.2% but 3.14%.  Nitpicking, just as I said, but the Greeks were still wrong.

Yes.  Details like this make a person wonder: where was the supervisor and the peer review?

> This business about subtracting the water of crystalisation is confusing.  The convention for concentrations as far as I am aware is normally just to cite what you dissolved in what solvent.  In other words: 4.5% (weight/volume) of oxalic acid dihydrate in 50% sugar syrup (not '3.2%' of anhydrous oxalic acid, because you never used that).

Yes.  I think the more recent recomendations are moving that way.  In fact, I see no reason to state the intended concentration on instruction sheets or labels.  People have enough trouble measuring grams and litres.  In fact, I suspect that is where any reports of kills comes from.

I wonder if the Greeks measured as accurately as the calculated?  +/- ???
             ***********************************************
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

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L