Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:13:08 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>The key issue in treatments is "what is the potential for harm". That is
why
>substances have been selected that occur naturally in honey...
Hello Peter!
This is of great concern to all in the need to reduce harmful contaminates
in our colonies.
I sometimes fear that perhaps, by industry continuing the focus and all
out efforts towards reducing contaminates by developing ever more
effective “natural pesticides”. We are as focus often does; blocking our
peripheral vision from seeing potentially greater harms lurking just
outside the focal point.
And this greater harm might well be, the contamination of the breeding
pool with genetics not having earned representation, having been propped
up by these ‘less harmful natural pesticides‘.
Even the most harmless treatment in the world will still spread a major
contamination, potentially contributing a greater long term harm to an
entire breeding population of honeybees. Unfortunately going overlooked
with the focus all going to selective harms.
From my point of view, a '99 % effective less harmful treatment', may just
as well be as harmful to honeybees as a '99 % effective harmful
treatment'. With the affects felt for years, having spread a
contamination of less fit genetics throughout the breeding population.
Best Wishes,
Joe Waggle
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
|
|