> >> 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>