Hello Everyone,

It seems that when a man watches for clouds he will never plant. The
proof of anything is not in its source but in one's own experience.

The criteria for successful test of small cell effects keeps changing.
First infected colonies had to survive 2 or 3 years without treatment.
It's been done.

Then it had to be done without AHB. It's been done.

Now the hives must produce an economic surplus as well!

I personally would like to add a few more. Maybe in Wyoming, during the
5th year of extreme drought and with the average low price of honey over
the last 10 years. Now if someone only would do this I would take all my
money out of the bank, invest it in bees and throw away that email from
Nigeria :>}

Did anyone apply this criteria before inserting all those strips. I think
not. The only real criteria was the mites were killed and the bees
survived.

A great characteristic of a good scientist is an innate curiosity coupled
with a desire to understand new, often unexplained phenomena. That is to
"boldly go where no man.....", er.... :>) I think that's why many of the
greatest discoveries are often made by those outside their professional
training. Many inside the profession spend most of their time and energy
memorizing that which has been already proven.

I know that if a mite control method focusing on treatment is proposed,
the chemical, oil, extract or mineral is readily sought by a large number
of beekeepers. And that product will be dripped, fumed or feed into a lot
more hives than is commonly believed.

I would think that an approach that requires a new, deeper look into bee
behavior would find it's greatest acceptance on this list. After all the
most informed beekeepers surely must understand how little we really know
about the bees.

Sharing on this list should inspire others to watch and observe their
bees more closely. And then again sharing those observations with other
helps them find their own proof.

Dennis
The small cell guy in Wyoming