Hi all

Bob Harrison wrote:
The Lusbys say their bees are not ahb but have no proof and
the USDA says all of Arizona is AHB from their research.

Reply:
Bob, the proof that our bees are not AHB is the fact that
neither the USDA nor other excellent labs and scientists in
Europe have identified our bees as africanized of any sort,
with the exception, in the beginning, when we helped with
samples of our bees in defining the accuracy/ parameters of
FABIS, which flunked and said our small black bees were
africanized, while the german scientists (Koeniger was one)
and others in USA (Houck was one, Roy-Keith Smith another)
said our bees were caucasian or similar to caucasian.

There has been no DNA done to pinpoint what our bees are,
except with DNA done on our bees and the small black ones
in the hills of San Diego by the USDA, when Charlie Morris
was inspector of San Diego County way back, when all this
stuff was starting on how to ID bees, and FABIS was being
written, and carried a disclaimer in its paper(that if the
bees in other areas were different then the bees in the
FABIS survey or another area, then different standards were
to be developed and used), that others never followed with
the exception of Arizona. Arizona did set up another model
for FABIS.

Either one can identify or one cannot. This is the oddity!
Just what are our bees???? I myself think NATIVE and I am
standing until the DNA says otherwise. . . .It certainly
has never said Africanized. In fact no managed colonies in
the whole state of Arizona have ever been surveyed to find
out by either FABIS or DNA what the bees actually are.

If identifying is going to be done, it is going to be done
right!

Bob Harrison also wrote:
I would need  some official inspection that the stock was
not AHb before I would order  queens from an area which
according to the *2001* USDA AHB spread map is the highest
concentration of AHB in the U.S. for a single state.

Reply:
No official statewide surverys were ever done in Arizona
for AHBs either before, or after de-statuatorizing the
books by either the USDA or the state of Arizona.

Even now Dr Rinderer says in ABJ, July 02 issue page 480,
only 9 of the 15 counties in Arizona were AHB according to
him.

The USDA never declared Arizona 100% africanized on paper,
as one can see by this in the current ABJ.

AHB classification for a hive means only one mating of a
queen of several in a hive to be africanized. For a county
to be africanized, only one hive has to be found by the
standard used to declare africanization, and yet FABIS was
flawed early on, and was not corrected to much later.

Only corrected after it's so-called trek up S. America thru
Mexico and into the USA including early parts of Texas and
Arizona.

The declaration of 100% africanized in Arizona,was done by
Mr Kelly, Director of the Arizona Dept of Agric, following
de-statutatory regulation of the books, as a parting gift
to our industry. It does not match Dr Rinderer assessment
of partial africanization. So which is correct? You choose.

As for a map showing the highest concentration of AHB in
the country. Well, IT SHOULD!! For the FIGURES ARE FLAWED.
Why???

Because throughout the 1980s and 1990s our area in Arizona
has had the most beekeepers trying to regress bees back
smaller. First to 900 size, i.e. Dr Erickson and Hines even
tried it. We worked with Dr Erickson and Dr Hoffman with
smaller cell size of 5.0 - 5.1 for many years, and now we
are even smaller. All the while many locally, followed us
trying.

On one side the bee lab was into studies with regressing of
honeybees to see how it effected mites(we had a signed
contract with Western REgion with Dr Erickson and Dr
Hoffman doing the work on a technical exchange of
information), and on the other side the lab was into
africanization with Dr Loper and his group. It was
conflicting at times between the two groups.

But the fact the so much comb was being made locally, and
put into beehives, was never reflected into the data bases
as domestic bees absconded to the feral! Why???? To help
the labs better to get AHB going for money grants?
Probably? But then, maybe they never thought about it as a
problem? After all who would it hurt in the long run?

If the maps did not show us as most africanized I whould be
even more surprised!

Also, did you know that the first 2-3 years, all ahb finds
were near or next to beeyards setup on smaller combs. Yet,
why no comparison of this or noting in surveys of official
record??? Sizing down in the area had already been going on
for 10 years or more at the time of official africanization
with bees coming into Arizona by local area beekeepers. The
lab itself had already been working with small cell
projects for more then 7-8 years also.

Ahbs in Arizona. I really don't think so, not like you do!
for I know the political history of the state for this
subject, and I will only believe when I see the DNA of our
yards showing it, which I do not think can be done. All
they were looking for was something different. This was
said many times. Different by sizing! Different by colour!
but they forgot DNA was still developing and now we will
wait until we officially find out! Then we will know for
sure.

Regards

Dee









__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com