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:
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:15:25 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
From "A Short History of the Empire State Honey Producers' Association", by Roger Morse (1967) :

>AFB was rampant in New York State in the 1920's. In NYS, Mr. A. C. Gould must be credited with demonstrating how American Foulbrood can be controlled through a rigid inspection program. He served as state inspector from 1928 till 1965. When Mr. Gould assumed responsibility fro bee disease inspection, the record shows that well over six per cent of the colonies in the state were infected with AFB.
>
>Gould advocated burning infected colonies, and after ten years, reduced the degree of infection to slightly more than one per cent. The Second World War resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of hobby beekeepers and in fewer inspectors being available to check colonies, As a result, the number of infected colonies increased and 1946 four per cent had AFB. By 1958 it was less than 1 per cent.
>
>Mr. Gould felt that it probably would be impossible to reduce the level to much less than one per cent without greatly increasing the number of inspectors. The spore stage may remain alive in old equipment for more than 30 years.


More recently, "The Genetic Basis of Disease Resistance", by Robert Page and Ernesto Guzman-Novoa (1997):

>Expectations should be realistic. The elimination of disease problems through selective breeding is not a realistic objective. Instead, a reduction in incidence or a reduction of the need to treat chemically may be attainable; the complete elimination of the need to treat chemically is not.
>
>Selection is an ongoing process that is necessary to produce and maintain resistant stocks. Selective progress will begin to deteriorate as soon as the selection on the population is relaxed.
>
>Numerous unsubstantiated claims of disease-resistant stocks are found in the bee journals. The first successful breeding program for resistance to AFB was implemented in September 1934 by O. W. Park, et al. They successfully developed and maintained resistant stock for 15 years.
>
>The worldwide eradication of any honey bee disease is unrealistic. Selective breeding programs will not succeed without economic incentives. Current prices paid for queens produced in the US will not support the added expense of industry driven breeding programs.  Institutional programs such as the USDA's have never succeeded, partly because of the failure of the bee industry to adopt the stocks they produced.

The above comes from "Honey Bee Pests, Predators, & Diseases" edited by Roger Morse and Kim Flottum (1997). Also from the book is the information that while apiary laws vary from state to state, Arizona has the distinction of having NO apiary laws, having repealed them all in 1994. The incidence of disease in that state is unknown. Many states such as Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming require all of the following: Registration of colonies, identification of apiaries, inspector right of entry, controlled apiary location, inspection of apiary, and AFB quarantine.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2