Bill Truesdell wrote:


Bob's prior posts say that you acknowledge 4.9 is only a
part of a
triad. That, for me, has given credibility to what you are
doing.

Reply:
Yes, Bill, 4.9 top tolerance is about 1/3. But it is a key
1/3 in that size then regulates both diet and mating
advantage the other 2/3 necessary to complete the equation.

Personally (with nothing to back it up but we are allowed
to hypothesize(guess) on this list) I think that the
success of smaller cell size is in producing a healthier
bee which can develop SMR tendencies because it
has a longer window of accommodation with Varroa. So it is
the cell size, to an extent, but it always gets down to the
bee, the second part of the triad.

Reply:
All science builds on the writings of the past Bill and
thus references at the end of published papers. We
published the small cell theory with references to back it
up in 1992 with Apiacta. Please see:

http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/apiacta1992.htm

We were involved in verifying our bees in collabertation
with USDA on selecting queens for shorter developement
times to beat mites also, something every one seems to want
long before AHBs got close to the USA with our bees. Please
therefore see:

http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/abjnov1989.htm

We were concerned with keeping our stocks also Bill, just
as a precaution, so we further were concerned and wrote
which was published in Apiacta 1995:

http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/apiacta1995.htm

We put and allowed our bees for hard thorough USDA testing
for what they were supposedly to establish criteria for
testing for AHB, etc in this country which only seemed to
bring frustation to us as others perceived the tests in the
rumour mill as something different. This information I
already posted back to Barry Sergeant here. The same
information is posted on beesource.com and Biobee now.

Since the posting with references and specifics beekeepers
seem to want to want, we have pulled in and practiced what
we preached to others.That is no chemicals/drugs, having
weaned off of them the first regression, no acids, no
essential oils, etc. All we do now is wait gathering the
physical proof in VOLUME so many want to see, and learning
what the path is all must follow to come through the
problem in the realworld school of hard knocks. Testing
with less then 10 colonies won't say anything works in mass
until a mass of bees is worked up CLEAN for actual physical
proof.

I am patient Bill. It will come. I am from the old school
of never say die.

You are right though, scientific tests with even soft
chemical usage are a no no and of no usage for true factual
results for finding the bees we all need to live.

Best regards,

Dee A. Lusby


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com