>
> > I do not understand why you would disallow this thought as a possibility.


Not disallowing at all Garret--you sounded so sure that that was the cause,
so I was curious about the basis for your surety, especially since, to the
best of my knowledge, an increase of mite reproductive rate due to delayed
pupal development due to miticide residues is only a hypothesis that has
never been actually supported by any research.

On the other hand, I routinely see nucs get overwhelmed by mites in a few
months when I bring new queen stocks into my yard.  So I was curious why you
would discount the simple explanation and be so adamant about the
hypothetical.  I thought that maybe you had other supportive observations
that you might not yet have shared.


> >The queens and nucs were produced and made up in the said operation. Am I
> wrong in assuming that you brought the queens in for placing into your made
> up colonies with your bees. If so, would this not be different variables.
>

Yes, would be different, which is exactly my point!  The point being that
the same phenomenon occurs even when there are no miticide-contaminated
combs.

>If I'm wrong please explain.


Not trying to make anyone wrong, Garret!  To me, Bee-L is a discussion group
where we look at all sides of an issue, hypothesis, or proposition, in order
to clarify our logic and thinking.  You were adamant about the cause of an
observed phenomenon, and I was simply asking for the evidence upon which you
based your conclusion.

Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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