Dee Lusby wrote:
>
> This email is to all on BEE-L especiall Bill Truesdell

I appreciate your response and, especially the moderate and kind way you
wrote.

I do hope you succeed in proving the merit of 4.9.

Bob's prior posts say that you acknowledge 4.9 is only a part of a
triad. That, for me, has given credibility to what you are doing.

Personally (with nothing to back it up but we are allowed to hypothesize
(guess) on this list) I think that the success of smaller cell size is
in producing a healthier bee which can develop SMR tendencies because it
has a longer window of accommodation with Varroa. So it is the cell
size, to an extent, but it always gets down to the bee, the second part
of the triad.

The reason I tend to insist on having some science in the trials is that
others, especially in conditions much different than yours, could as
easily get failures using 4.9 which have nothing to do with the 4.9.
They could also succeed, after adding Apistan/Cumophose strips as
insurance (which has happened in other supposed trials). Without some
discipline in the trials, the results are suspect.

Again, thank you for your kind response.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, ME