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:
Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:08:12 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (14 lines)
Greetings,

This is the last thing I have to say about this, unless anyone has specific questions.

The New Zealand approach to AFB is radical, but their goal is to *not have AFB*. Now, modern beekeeping started about 150 years ago, with Langstroth's frame. He saw immediately its usefulness in that combs could be removed, examined, and at times -- exchanged. Langstroth was also at the forefront of the effort to have *better* bees (based on the criteria of the time).

Exchanging combs is crucial to all the beekeeping that I do: raising queens, making nucs, supering, etc. To not be able to exchange frames from one hive to another is my worst nightmare. Therefore, I run 200+ hives with a zero tolerance for AFB. I can exchange combs because *I don't have AFB*.

Unless you are studying AFB, there is no justification for having it. Because commercial operators have tons of it, does not make it OK, a good thing, or acceptable. If someone told me my choice was between having no AFB and being able to freely exchange combs -- OR -- to stop exchanging combs altogether to avoid spreading AFB throughout my outfit, guess what?


Peter Borst
Ithaca NY 14850

ATOM RSS1 RSS2