Dee Lusby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

What we are doing that can be read by anyone. It is based on honeybee
field management on a "wholebee concept" and not doing field
management by soundbites in bits and pieces.

1. In a colony that has been restored to health, the natural defense
systems of bees are fully operational again

2. No secondary infections by foulbroods, chalk broods, etc., can take
place because infected brood will be destroyed by the bee's own
natural communal defense system.

3. The size of the worker bee returns to normal and again fits the
natural flora of the region.

* * *

Maybe you would like to explain these in detail. Here you claim that
bees have a "natural communal defense system" and that it prevents
"secondary infections". Does it prevent nosema?

How can the size of the honey bee be related in any way to
the size of the "natural flora of the region" if
a) the honey bee is not native to the region; and
b) flowers come in all sizes, being utilized by
creatures from the tiniest insects to birds and bats, etc. ??

* * *

Maybe you could explain this:

> In areas of complex mongrelization where several races/strains of bees are determined, retrogressive breeding should be a multi-step process. It should start with the separation of yellow races/strains from dark races/strains. Next, beekeepers should separate colour by caste size, to be lastly followed by separation of remaining bees by phisical characteristics other than size.

* * *

-- In life, some things seem true enough, some things can be called
questionable, and others are simply ridiculous.

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************