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:
Allen Dick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:37:29 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
> I am aware of what you have posted here about your plans for SMR. I have not
> seen anywhere an indication that you will keep some of your SMR stock
> completely off any chemical to see what the true survivor rate is. Exactly
> how does one measure the "success" of SMR if they are still using chemicals?

The problem with any such tests is that what is happening in test hives can be
affected by what is happening in the surrounding area.  Varroa from collapsing
hives can overwhelm a hive that is not generating varroa on its own.  AFB from a
neighbourhood can get into a hive that has no history of AFB.  SHB can attack a
hive that has not generated AHB...

The success of a technique does not have to be absolute to be considered
worthwhile.  If SMR only reduces the need for treatment by half, it will still
be a success.  Of course we all would like to have 100% freedom from chemical
treatment, but I doubt that will happen in a short term except in isolated
cases.

We are stuck with IPM.  We have to watch pest and disease levels and respond if
we see economic levels or suffer the consequences.  Breeding and management can
reduce the need for chemical intervention, but as bob has said, if he detects
that he is going to lose his bees, he is going to intervene.

Fair enough.  IMO.  That does not mean he cannot observe reduced chemical
dependence and attribute that to SMR.

allen
http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2