>    Cells Vs. mated queens- looks like its a matter of personal taste and
>or successes. One more comment though. Recent bee literature is filled
>with talk about controlling diseases with genetics. As an industry I don't
>think there is even one success (what major disease is no longer treated
>due to our breeding efforts-natural selection doesn't count). It seems to
>me that if genetic disease control (breeding for resistance) is our goal
>then we not only should use mated queens but queens that have been
>properly bred.
>
>        What thoughts are out there regarding genetic vs. chemical disease
>control? Are we barking up the wrong tree?
 
Chemical disease control will eliminate the possibility for a natural selection
against a better resistant stock. That's why we don't use any drugs for control
of AFB or nosema in Sweden. There is very little AFB here when we always
kill the hives that have an outbreak of the disease. Over time the bees
naturally
will get a resistance. I belive we can help them in that process by selecting
more against disease restistance. Steve Taber for example claims he has
succeeded in doing it. But there has to be a reduction in the use of drugs to
get a chance to do the selection.
 
So are we really giving the genetic disease control a chance?
 
Regards  P-O