>it appears that your initial average natural mite fall was about 10
>mites/day. Your final natural fall (even with oxalic residues) at the end
>of the trial is about 7 mites per day. So how in the world do you conclude
>that you've gotten "decent control"?
Oh, yes. I had almost forgotten, since this all began over 60 days ago. I
should explain.
Readers may recall, this whole thing started when I posted here that I was not
seeing any varroa in my hives after I put screened bottoms under them.
It took me a while to realise that mites must have been dropping, but I was
just not seeing them.
I was used to seeing mites in alcohol (easy!) and I also had done a few casual,
quick drops last year on my own hives with my old sticky boards, and I had
counted them outside in bright sun with reading glasses. No problem.
That was last year.
This year, I was examining some new, non-sticky boards indoors, and my
eyes had been acting up, but I did not realise how much. My first counts were
also somewhat informal and you may notice one day was missing. In fact some
numbers were from memory. I think this was all chronicled all in my diary.
All my drops previously were done for commercial purposes at a time when I
used strips which worked well, and I delegated the counting at that time. It
was good enough for what we were doing. We seldom saw more than a few mites.
This observation project was a learning experience for me. As I have written in my
diary, but should also report here for those who have not and will not read the
details there, Jean-Pierre Chapleau reported that most beekeepers seriously
undercount mites. I thought about that and got better equipped to see mites
and realised that they were not all the same. I then learned which ones to count,
and my accuracy went up.
I did a test with my magnifying setup compared to just reading glasses and good
light and found that I undercounted by something like 20% using just glasses,
and that was after I had learned to spot the ones that land on edge and are
almost invisible due to being so thin. Mites look big from the top, but they are
just a sliver when viewed from the side.
My earliest counts may be low by as much as half. I think they were. At first
my boards had no sticky on them and I later learned that half the mites
dropping were reputed to go back up under some circumstances, so maybe
they were even 1/4 of the true drop.
I learned quite quickly, though, (for me) and if it matters to anyone, the details start
on October 9. http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/2011/diary100111.htm
So, I was including the knowledge that my accuracy in counting had increased over
the time of observation in reaching my conclusion that the treatments work
and actually reported that in my notes, but have the tenacity to read them.
(Frankly my own diary bores me to death when I have go back to read it).
I make no pretense that my report is scientifically sound. In fact I
tout it as a chronicle of all the mistakes and false assumptions that
one can make along the path to (hopefully) understanding, and your comments
assist in proving how easy it is to assume something which may or may not be true
just because everyone says it is so and someone builds a $10,000 machine for sale
that makes lots of smoke and scares people.
The end of the first act is due in a week or two. The final act comes next spring.
Allen Dick, RR#1 Swalwell, Alberta, Canada T0M 1Y0
51 33'39.64"N 113 18'52.45"W
http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/
***********************************************
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
Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm
|
