BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date:
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:36:14 -0500
Reply-To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: neonics testing on the wrong part?
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Message-ID:
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
From:
Charles Linder <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (8 lines) 
Mark  if the theory of transference to the larvae was correct wouldn't we see "old comb" was extremely clean?  assuming the residue was left in the initial wax,  and that say (just picking a number) 5% was then transferred to the larvae, in 20 brood cycles or so in theory we wold have clean wax (Yes I realize it would not be linear)
Point being that old comb would be better than new.   I also would wager that the cocoon spun by the larvae provides a large insulating factor for transference.

             ***********************************************
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2