> >Obviously, if the advantage is small, it may be overwhelmed by other 
> >more
> significant factors. Also, as I said (as have so many), no progress 
> can be expected in mite resistance if beekeepers continue to use acaricides.
>

Dude, you're stealing the gist of my next article in ABJ : (




Guys you realize that makes no sense.  Were it true,  the people using the bond method would have succeeded.  So far the bond methods only work for guys who sell more bees to the ones who think it will work.

You can cite the wild populations like Arnot,  but it in the end is nonsense as its not real world beekeeping on the scale we are really discussing. Many more factors involved.

 If the acaricides  were actually "promoting" the problem  then we would by now have found some of those pockets of the wonderful self healing genetics I keep hearing about.   There are actually many areas in the country where bee pressure is so light from "beekeepers" that the local bees would have fixed themselves.

Its like saying we will never become cancer resistant if we keep healing the one who get cancer......  what your hopeing/breeding for  is a bee capable of fighting off a vampire,  one that has virus with it on top,  and what your asking for is a genetic response to said vampire.   Seems to me what we are actually looking for is an epigenetic response or a learned trait,  just think how many generations of humans never became restraint to lion bites......or the infections that come when they attack.

But then you say as long as we keep lions under control,  we never will get resistant???  So our soulution is to quite shooting lions  and someday they won't bother us anymore....???



Charles
 

             ***********************************************
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