Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:00:06 -0800 |
Content-Disposition: |
inline |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<007b01c949b9$26b20c70$0501000a@j> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>
> As far as a "sustainable" commercial model,
There are certainly aspects of our commercial model that are hard to
classify as sustainable.
For example, if not for the release of Tylosin, the "control AFB with
Terramycin" was not sustainable. If not for the release of Hivastan, the
current synthetic miticide model was in danger of failing, as amitraz begins
to show failure.
The organic beekeeping group are to be commended for keeping bees with
minimal synthetic inputs, but I would prefer that they not be so self
righteous. "Natural beekeeping" would mean that colonies would not be
crowded into yards, hives would be up in trees, no honey would be extracted,
so that colonies would swarm freely, and a large percentage of colonies
would die naturally each year.
The "unnaturalness" of any of our approaches is more in degree, rather that
black or white.
Randy Oliver
****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm *
****************************************************
|
|
|