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
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bob & Liz <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 30 May 2001 10:43:23 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
Hello Bill & All,
Bill wrote:
 I would venture that most of the Varroa and Tracheal mite controls that
> ended as failures or had only limited control were the result of well
> meaning people trying to find a solution to the problem. That is why I
> asked the question on the results of tests and trials conducted by
> others. I did not mean to impugn the intentions of inventor of the
> fogger.
I know you didn't Bill. I only wanted the Bee-L people to realize behind the
adds in ABJ is a small modest frame house  in Iowa and a inventer which
works out of a modest frame two car garage and makes each piece of equipment
by hand himself.  I am sure his disappointment in the vinegar machines
performance is possibly greater than those which have tried the machine.
Bill wrote:
> My concern, and I have spoken it often on this list, is with the fervor
> that accompanies some of the mite control ideas that populate the
> internet. They sound good and intuitively make sense. That coupled with
> testimonials from some users makes it look like definitive mite control
> has been found. Then the other part of the problem comes in.

The main problem in this particular case Bill is the inventer does not keep
bees so he has designed the machine from theories put before him by
beekeepers and his own research.
Bob wrote:
> >Perhaps if a beekeeper were to spend the time figuring out exactly why
the
> >machine is not providing varroa control maybe the machine could be
improved > >to a point it could be used with success with other IPM methods.
Bill wrote:
> When we run the test and fail, we assume it is our fault and that we
> should or could have done something differently. That information is
> held back because few of us like to admit failure. We do not realize
> that most others who tried it also failed. It is only after someone
> admits failure that others come forward and a valid discussion takes
> place.
Inventors are use to failure but if the theory is sound then most inventors
believe the invention will work with the *bugs* worked out. I received a
email from New Zealand yesterday in response to my post.
quote:
"Like you in theory it should work,including the idea of using the mineral
fogger". The New Zealand Beekeeper is going to contact the inventor and
research further.. Another quote from the New Zealand beekeeper:
"I hear the negative comments and respect the people that say them. I have
also hear positive comments from other that have use them and feel that I
really can't go away from the idea totally till I have explored the idea."
I believe the NZ beekeeper will not mind me publishing the above comments.
According to the NZ beekeeper varroa is causing serious problems. I have and
always have had respect for the NZ beekeepers. Those guys don't leave a
stone unturned looking for solutions to beekeeping problems.
Sincerely,
Bob Harrison
Odessa, Missouri
I wrote the post yesterday four hours after hernia surgery. I am home on
*light duty* for three weeks. I will be on pain pills for awhile so please
bare with me if I seem not to make sense. All i can do is read or research
on the internet while on the pain pills. Not allowed to *drive*.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2