Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:44:34 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Peter wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, this is an example of faulty math. If screens with
> formic have half as many mites, that doesn't mean double
> effectiveness, my mistake.
>
> Actually, if the controls are 70% infected and the formic hives
> have a 21% rate, then 70% of the total mites have been killed
> (49 divided by 70). If you add the screens and have a 9% rate,
> then you have killed 87% of the total mites (61 divided by 70).
> This means that only 17% of the total kill with formic and
> screens combined is accountable to the screens.
That doesn't sounds very impressive put that way, but comparing the
resulting infestation rates with and without screens (21% and 9%) it seems
that the screens got rid of more than half of what the acid alone left
behind, lowering the infection percentage (measured how?) by about 57%.
Perhaps the formic acid treatment results in mites which fall but are not
killed, and the screens remove most or many of those from the hive.
Frank.
-----
The very act of seeking sets something in motion to meet us;
something in the universe, or in the unconscious responds as if
to an invitation. - Jean Shinoda Bolen
|
|
|