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
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
Subject:
From:
randy oliver <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:30:36 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
>explain the consistently higher mite fall on the small cell worker comb, 
>which was repeated over four consecutive years.

Am I missing something here?  The SC colonies always had more mite drop, to 
me indicating that there were more mites!

Over the 30 day sampling periods, all susceptible phoretic mites, plus the 
normal 50% mite mortality from emerging brood would have been counted.

Appears to me that in his apiary, the SC colonies always had more mites, no 
matter how much he equalized or treated.

I'm not looking for argument, Dee, I'm open to small cell, but this data 
certainly does not support it in my interpretation.

Randy Oliver 

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2