Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:40:34 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In a message dated 21/01/2010 14:30:44 GMT Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> I said in the post that I was using varroa 'as the main problem, and a
> marker'. So resistance to varroa is what I meant. With such
resistance
> of course you also gain resistance to all the disease organisms
vectored by
> the mites.
"Actually, you do not. You only reduce the number of vectors. Pathogen
resistance is independent of Varroa."
Yes, good point. However the fact that reducing varroa mite levels by any
means will tend to reduce vulnerability to 'secondary' infections is not
by any means irrelevant.
It might be easier for the purposes of this discussion to generalise away
from specific pests and pathogens and work from, as it were, the other end.
_Whatever_ causes failing health is the problem. Locating bees _best
able to thrive without assistance_ is the goal. The questions then is: which
Aussie bees best meet that aim, and do they meet it as well as, or better
than, locally raised bees. And, how can we tell?
We must also ask: to what degree do any imports undermine the resistance
of US bees they come into contact with? Given that the nationwide
development of broad-spectrum resistant stock (that's pretty much 'healthy' stock as
far as I can see) is a clearly desirable goal, what contribution, positive
and negative do imports make?
Does anyone see a problem with speaking in these general terms?
Mike
***********************************************
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
Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L
|
|
|