Quis Custodiet
Field Bee
What Bailey debunked was that Acarine was the agent responsible. Not that IofW disease did not happen.
That is correct, none seem to agree on what the disease actually was.
What Bailey debunked was that Acarine was the agent responsible. Not that IofW disease did not happen.
That is correct, none seem to agree on what the disease actually was.
Why it cannot be acarine? Is it some voting issue?
It might well be acarine, I do not know. I meant it was correct that Bailey claimed it was not acarine. Voting on the matter is hardly likely to provide a conclusive answer.
It might well be acarine, I do not know. I meant it was correct that Bailey claimed it was not acarine. Voting on the matter is hardly likely to provide a conclusive answer.
It might well be acarine, I do not know. I meant it was correct that Bailey claimed it was not acarine. Voting on the matter is hardly likely to provide a conclusive answer.
Does anyone have a copy of this research paper? This is the first I have heard of this.
IIRC Bailey found equal numbers of acarine infections in colonies not suffering from IofW disease. Although he never addressed whether they were all original English Amm's..
Frow's acarine medication was a mixture of petrol, saffrol, and nitro benzene IIRC,
association .... I'd like to see membership/hive numbers for tbe period 1905-1920...
Ive found files for the beekeepers journal and Beekeepers advisor for 1873-1922 a weekly publication. That mentions in 1914 that they intend to compile losses to iow disease by district. ....
Blessed is he who has nothing useful to say and has the wit to realise it.
Aye, we all make mistakes, nt many will admit to it.#
Your father's was to not pull out sooner.
You have really excelled now jenkins, it is not easy to sink to the depths that you have just managed.
Enter your email address to join: