Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:02:16 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> So you'd rather preserve the susceptible stocks?
How do you read that into what I wrote? I give up. I said the opposite.
Or tried to, anyhow.
Seems this is a really hard topic for many people. I oversimplified it for
clarity, but still many think in terms of absolutes rather than tendencies
and destruction rather than management.
I do appreciate Randy's comments, though. As always, he has thought this
through and sees the difficulties that still exist in this transitory time
and the problems that can occur in crowded regions.
What is obvious, though is that many are able to operate in somewhat crowded
areas and still have few AFB problems.
Although I do not consider the existence of AFB open to robbing to be a huge
problem, since hygienic bees will deal with it (although they may have
spotty brood during that challenge), I do consider the nearby presence of
pools of susceptible genetics to be a hazard. I'd be more worried about a
neighbour with a thousand hives like the ones Robert is probably running
than some supers of AFB-riddled equipment.
I especially have to think about this when I am advocating walk-away splits
and not careful maintenance of tested and proven hygienic stock. I confess
I have this luxury because there is no one within ten miles of me and
because when I beg queens, they come from the Saskatraz project or Kona, or
Buckfast, or other quality stock. (My friends have good taste in bee
stock).
As always, it is easy to state generalities. It is the specific cases that
are always problematic.
Many are running without much or any AFB medication, relying on resistant
stock, but the devil is always in the details.
Thanks all for the input.
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|