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:
Bill Truesdell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 13 Oct 1999 07:33:38 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (35 lines)
David Eyre wrote:
> Bill Truesdell wrote
> >Dr. R ran tests of the same method of application and abandoned
> >it since it did not work. So we have two observations and two
> >separate conclusions.
>
> Sorry, incorrect, I think if you read his work on Barry's pages
> you'll find he didn't abandon it at all, this list drove him off to
> continue working on it all from a different angle. There are some who
> consider the methods of this list to be damaging to original thought.
> Destructive to say the least.

It was reported to me that Dr. R is using the fogger method of
application since previous methods of application did not work.
He has abandoned the top bar and wick methods. I also get emails
from those who are afraid to post on this list when FGMO is
mentioned.
Also on Barry's pages are all the reports by Dr. R.. If you read
the first ones they are very convincing that the top bar
application method gave good results. The main concern was the
number of times one had to apply the oil. So the wick method was
proposed. It now appears that other factors were at work, since
when the tests were conducted by others, varroa was not checked
at all.

If challenging the statement -FGMO works- is not appropriate for
this list, that would damaging to not only origional thought but
any thought.
But this is not a hobby beekeeper list. It is supposed to be a
little more advanced than that. And if an absolute statement is
made with only one data point, expect it to be challenged. To not
challenge it would be wrong.

Bill Truesdell

ATOM RSS1 RSS2