Hi to all on BEE-L

I wrote:
> Please note that varroa/trachael mites and secondary
> diseases were not
> mentioned above as that is already considered proven with
> prior 4.9mm wax
> foundation already in industry hands.

Dave Cushman replied:
Certainly not proven, conjecture yes, some evidence yes,
possible yes, but not proven.

Reply:
Yes, Dave this does make one wonder doesn't it!

All I can say is, please see:

http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/abjdec1997.htm Titled:
Arizona Beekeepers believes smaller size cell siameter is
the answer to mite problems, American Bee Journal, Dec
1997.

Also please note that Dr Eric Erickson Jr did the varroa
mite survey count after only 4 months of regression onto
4.9mm foundation and our bees were still actively adjusting
downward to survivalability with mites.

Unfortunately, for some reason, no further surverys were
done to see how our bees were progressing towards lower
infestation levels in subsequent years.

Question: If knowlingly is everything under the law, then
is not wanting to knowlingly know future mite infestation
levels acceptable practice?

Since then Erik Osterlund has been to see our bees twice
all the way from Sweden and written numerous articles on
small cell size. Also Researchers from other countries have
been here to see our bees and how they perform. Even Allen
Dick and his friend Joe Meijer from Alberta Canada came
down to see for themselves. In fact an article is running
in Bee Culture in the June issue right now on this very
subject concerning varroa infestation levels in our small
cell bees.

Proof!. . . All I can say is that to get creditable proof,
research must knowingly want to know. Also be able to drive
back across town here to get it, if knowlingly wanted for
verification. Does research really want to know? That's
what I'd like to know?

Regards,

Dee A. Lusby






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com