> I feel our modern migratory beekeeping system tends to break this code by
> spreading pests and diseases. We rationalize doing so by arguing that this
> is the only practical way to feed the world. But as others have pointed
> out, it is a style of beekeeping that is dependent on science to
> continually throw us chemical life lines to avoid collapse.
Well, this has turned out to be true. Will it continue to be? I think not.
I hope not.
The chemical lifelines are intended to be short-term measures to get the
industry through to the time when bees can handle these pests and diseases
with minimal chemical assistance and without a total collapse in the
meantime. The use of chemicals, ironically, delays the ultimate resolution
of the problems by maintaining stocks in the gene pool that have desirable
characteristics but are susceptible, an effect which has both beneficial and
deleterious effects.
Will this time of reduced chemical dependence ever come? That is the
question, and it seems that there are two channels by which that day is
actually approaching. One is the natural selection pressure on bees to
tolerate these problems, and the other is breeding programmes.
We are increasingly seeing credible reports of feral bee comebacks, and new
genetic techniques allow much more intelligent and targeted selection,
greater accuracy, lower cost, and much shorter development times than even a
decade ago.
> The growers that finance this system are also very dependent on science to
> fend off collapse. Because they have planted huge monocultures, their
> crops are very susceptiable to evolving pests and parasites.
I think that this is well understood and well studied. I also think that
solutions may be emerging. Unfortunately some solutions may add new
problems, as we see with the new insecticides which are supposed to be less
harmful to the environment and humans, but which may be so ubiquitous and
subtle that no one really knows what the effects are.
> But don't you find it a little screwy that a beekeeper with 300 hives who
> carefully avoids developing resistant varroa by alternating his mite
> treatments, is considered an impractical dreamer?
Having been that guy or something close, and having had to participate in
making industry decisions for my province, I have to agree.
However, on examining the issue, it became to me that the only alternative
to permitting (almost) free bee movement was unenforceable regulation and a
repressive regime where growth, innovation and economic activity was
stifled. This would protect some current small operators, but severely
handicap the major operators and young beekeepers, and discourage future
growth and investment in the industry.
We watched jurisdictions that attempted to control beekeepers' activities
and saw that the result was destruction of beekeeping businesses and a
decline in the industry overall, plus a lot of bad feelings. It was
claimed, perhaps quite fairly, that more beekeepers were destroyed by the
regulations than by the pests. We saw that wherever the government stepped
in to limit beekeeper activity, some benefitted, but the total activity was
reduced.
The closure of the US/Canada border was a perfect example of a case where
the regulation turned out to have more adverse effects than the pests did
when we got them anyways -- for the Canadian industry as a whole -- even
though many individuals benefitted). It was a boon for some, but proved to
be an overall brake on an industry which had been growing 10% a year and has
since stagnated, especially where regulation is most obvious.
> And that our industry leaders are those who are totally dependendent on
> science to come up with the next new mite strip?
I think that is an overstatement, but not without some merit.
The dependence on science I concede. The fact that science has been coming
up with working chemical strips so far, while not delivering well accepted
biological solutions -- yet -- is unfortunate. The problem is that
chemicals tend to be quick, visible, uniform and predictable, while
biological solutions tend to be slower, more variable, less predictable and
harder to monitor.
I also think those trying to breed resistance have been looking through the
wrong end of the telescope and aiming for high resistance readings, rather
than ways to reduce incidents of susceptibility. The difference is subtle,
but very crucial to achieving effective control of pests by eliminating
pockets of high infection which then spread throughout an operation and
neighbourhood.
At any rate, it is easy to see that things are screwy, but it is a lot
harder to find anything better. I realize that it would not be so hard if
one were in absolute control -- at least that is what many think -- but in
the real world it is different, and imposing solutions usually does not
work, at least in open societies.
> The big weakness in our current system is that if science can't come up
> with the next big cure, then we all go down the tubes, because thanks to
> migration and world trade, we've now all got the same disease profile in
> our hives. If science fails us and things do collapse maybe we should
> consider going back to a policy of 'do no harm to your neighbour'
If science fails us, then policy will be the least of our problems.
Moreover, when trying to be Solomon, one soon learns that "doing no harm to
anyone" is impossible. Society is a complex web of competing interests, and
no matter who wins, someone loses. Trying to maximize and allocate the
gains while minimizing, mitigating, and fairly allocating the losses is what
makes policy-making so challenging.
If there were only a way to make omelets without breaking eggs.
allen
http://www.honeybeeworld.com/
---
If you limit your choices only to what seems possible or reasonable, you
disconnect yourself from what you truly want, and all that is left is a
compromise.
Robert Fritz
****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm *
****************************************************
|
