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:
Eric Brown <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 14 May 2007 09:54:35 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
On Sat, 12 May 2007 22:47:56 -0700, Dee Lusby 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>this because all races/strains looked at so far by
>beekeepers using SC for such, do not seem to have a problem
>with either mites, once their bees are regressed down in
>size and queen shift is completed. Also, no one is
>reporting problems continuing with secondary diseases
>either.

Beekeepers using persimmon lumber for their frame parts aren't reporting 
any problems with mites either.  Then again, they aren't reporting much of 
anything, because there aren't enough of them to make very many reports.

My point is that the above statement is only as significant as the pool of 
beekeepers doing the reporting (or non-reporting).  My understanding is 
that they're all but completely insignificant.  Can anyone show us 
evidence to the contrary?

Eric

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2