BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"J. Waggle" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 4 Oct 2012 17:29:37 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (77 lines)
Hello All,

Several years ago, -and the archives
will support this, it was the fad here
to credit non-vurilunt mites for the 
success of non treatment beekeeping 
and resurgence of the ferals.

A period passed which, some were crediting 
escaping russian stock for the success 
of non treatment beekeeping and the 
feral resurgence.

Another period passed which some
were crediting the spreading of 
genetics from the commercially produced
hygienic stock for the success of non
treatment beekeeping and the resurgence
of the ferals.

Another period passed when it was
suggested that the non treatment 
beekeepers were succeeding because
the colonies were swarming off
for the express purpose of carrying 
away the varroa infestation from the 
mother colony.

The idea crediting of AHB for the success of 
many non treatment beekeepers and
the resurgence of ferals has been around
for about 10 years, and lately is regaining
popularity.   

Theres more... the replacement of comb...
etc. isolated colonies and so on.... 
But I'll stop here.

I suppose I am wondering what drives us
to use commentary based on guesses or 
assumptions, which IMO are solely intended 
for the express purpose of shedding doubt 
or mitigating the respectful comments or 
reported success of others. 

AHB has not been detected in the state of
PA, yet it has been 'guessed' as the reason
for the resurgence of ferals in my area. 

If the intent is to promote good  fact based 
discussion,  -then should guesses and 
assumptions be accompanied by some 
supporting documentation or evidence?  
Or do you think it is ok to 'float' these 
assumptions out there as a means to 
cast doubt without upholding the
responsibility of providing at least
some evidence supporting the 
assumption or hearsay?

Best Wishes,
Joe Waggle





  

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2