Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Apr 2013 16:37:39 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Message-ID: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Bill said:
"Forget the sub-lethal effects especially since we know the lethal effects
of varroa, nosema and virus."
But...there is a problem with this conclusion. When there are sub-lethal effects present, additional problems are magnified. You can't just "forget" sub-lethal and think that dealing with varroa, nosema, and virus will be enough. It's like dealing with a "sickly" child (one that is perhaps malnourished, or has some other fundamental physiological weakness). You'll be running to the doctor's office every week. If that child were normal and healthy, then it would fight off infections pretty well on its own, and you'd rarely need the dr's drugs to prop it back up on its feet. There seem to be a lot of sickly bees. Wouldn't it be useful to get rid of "sub-lethal" and let them fight off Varroa, nosema, and viruses (maybe with a little help from us) like they have evolved over millions of years to do?
Of course, government, individual rights, agricultural practices, and general obfuscation are in the way of that.
Christina
***********************************************
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
|
|
|