Dee Lusny wrote
>Please note that varroa/trachael mites and secondary
>diseases were not
>mentioned above as that is already considered proven with
>prior 4.9mm wax
>foundation already in industry hands.


Considered proven? Considered proven *by whom*?  And what does
*considered proven* mean? Is this different from proved?

I thought that the fact that beekeepers in South Africa have used 4.9
foundation for decades and *still* have problems with mites, proved
that 4.9 foundation was *not* a cure-all. I thought *you* said it was
only part of a complicated regime which involves special nutrition
and selective breeding.

Remember, if you are doing a lot of unusual practices and you get
results, you have no way of knowing *which* of these practices is
causing the effects you are getting. That is the reason that
controlled studies are needed. How do you know that the results you
are getting are not attributable solely to bee stock and not to
foundation at all?

One final caution: Buyer beware! If a product shows up in a catalog,
it means one thing and one thing only: somebody thinks they can make
a lot of money from it. It does *not* mean it has been proven
effective (whatever you mean by that).



--

Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>