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:
Scot Mc Pherson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:39:25 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (34 lines)
Bob Said:
The book describes to constant change of commercial beekeeping and what 
always happens to those commercial beekeepers which do not adapt
quickly.

Reply:
I find it interesting that this is said in light of beekeepers refusing
to adapt to a non-chemical management system when the chemical
management system doesn't seem to be working. I am not sure why the need
for prior proof of a non-chemical system working before trying it when
the chemical system we already know isn't working. Bob Cox from Weslaco
bee lab had as part of his presentation, in the Nov 2005 IHPA meet, data
that demonstrated that no legally applied treatment seems to be working.

I also find it interesting that these same beekeepers are attributing
varroa tolerance of AHB to be genetics and not the small cell size
associated with AHB despite the fact that beekeepers well beyond the
AHB's influence are having as much success with small cell as those
beekeepers who are successful with small cell in the declared AHB
territories. Studies can say a lot, and they can say nothing at all.
They provide data, sure...however what is more important to us as
beekeepers is practical success, not data.

It is amazing that the data says we shouldn't be successfully raising
bees with growth, despite the fact that offical data suggests we should
have been out of business long ago.

--
Scot McPherson
The McPherson Family Honey Farms
Davenport, Iowa USA

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---

ATOM RSS1 RSS2