Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 27 Dec 2008 18:14:19 +1000 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I have been following the drone trapping method with interest.
Having read what Randy wrote on his website, I see by the photo that he had
one frame in a hive but did mention maybe two.
Looking at Seely's paper I see that he used four (4) in the brood chambers
and then in one lot had drone comb above the excluder as well. He noted
decreased honey production compared to those which did not have drone comb.
Looking at it from afar, I would have thought that four was too many. One
as per the photo of Randy's seemed to me to be a reasonable compromise.
What was the reason for introducing drone comb above the excluder by Seely?
I would have thought that this would have no effect on varroa as there was
no brood. I also know some who have used drone comb in honey supers above
an excluder citing that each frame would hold more honey as the cells were
bigger and there were less walls so a greater volume available to store
honey. There did not seem to be a reluctance by the bees to store honey in
the drone combs compared to worker cells above the excluder.
I use a drone comb, complete, in the middle of a brood chamber for drone
production in our queen rearing operation. I have not done a study to find
out if these produce less honey than one without the full drone comb. Maybe
something for the future.
Randy mentions that in the first round of drone brood there are not a lot of
varroa probably because of the oxalic treatment. He says in one of his
posts on Bee-L "Removing it if it doesn't contain enough mites would be a
waste, and would have little effect on the eventual mite population." I
would have thought that reducing the varroa population, even by a small
amount, would decrease the numbers thus reducing the varroa population at a
later stage. Wouldn't it be a trebling or quadrupling effect as the varroa
bred (depending on how many survive) so starting from a lower base would
mean less in many months time? I might have the maths a little wrong here
but surely it is not a linear increase?
Just thoughts that come to mind and no doubt I stand corrected if I am
wrong.
Trevor Weatherhead
AUSTRALIA
*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at: *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************
|
|
|