> >> Chemical disease control will eliminate the possibility for a natural
> selection
> >> against a better resistant stock.
> >> So are we really giving the genetic disease control a chance?
>
> Vince Coppola replied:
> >        Agree on chemicals interfering with natural selection but can we not
> >select for resistance even while using a chemical? For instance the
> >frozen brood test for hygenic behavior will work whether or not the
> >colony is being fed antibiotic.>
<snip>
> And if more beekeepers contribute to the testing we will faster get to the
> goal. Chemical treatment will mask those hives we need to get out of
> business in order to improve stock.
>
> There are two ways to get better stock; one is to add improvements to
> existing stock. The other is to eliminate the worst hives so we get an
> average colony improvement.
>
> I think both ways should be used. The goal should be faster reached that way.
> Then we can not continue to use drugs on a regular basis.
 
I guess the question arises:
 
In a given operation or part of an operation, is there an attempt
being made to develop breeding stock, or is the operation planning
to rely principally on stock developed elsewhere?
 
In the first case, consistent efforts must be made to select and
propagate stock with desirable qualities with very limited and
well-considered use of chemical or management methods of pest and
disease control as debated above.
 
However, in the latter, where most stock is purchased in the form of
mated queens or nucs or packages, there is little value in taking any
losses that can be economically controlled with intervention.
 
The latter case applies to most backlot and commercial operations
where there is no consistent and scientific plan of development, and
where matings are uncontrolled, and bees are routinely purchased.
 
This is because the stock will never be propagated and distributed,
but will rather be replaced with new stock from a breeder - one who
hopefully will have used rigorous selection in choosing his/her
breeder stock - or from the neigbour's place.
 
Even in the former case, using *some* chemical controls may make
sense.  For example, using Fumidil B in the queen raising hives -
which are the production segment of the breeding business - is wise,
even if the bees are from supposedly nosema resistant stock, because
the customer should receive uninfected stock, and queen rearing can
place abnormal stress on colonies that will try even the best bees
to the limit sometimes.
 
It is likely, however, that Fumidil should not be used in the hives that are
being evaluated as breeders - if nosema resistance is being sought -
because it will mask susceptible hives - ones that should be
discarded from the program.  This also applies to any intervention
chemical or otherwise that we do not wish to have to depend on in
future.
 
(A qualification of the above is that some minimal control must be
used in the case of conditions that are so lethal that no breeding
stock would survive without limited control being applied.  Varroa is
such a condition - given the bees we have to work with at present.)
 
In other words, we need to distinguish between hives that are being
used to develop breeders and those which are strictly for production
of products - and which will not be used to supply breeding stock.
 
In the case of strictly production (most)  hives, IMHO the only
considerations that need be made in regards chemical use, are safety
and appropriateness.
 
Regards
 
Allen
 
W. Allen Dick, Beekeeper                                         VE6CFK
RR#1, Swalwell, Alberta  Canada T0M 1Y0  Internet:[log in to unmask]
Honey. Bees, Art, & Futures <http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~dicka>