> > > 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