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 L Borst <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:59:21 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
More from the Evans/Spivak paper, in which they cover the work done on bee pathology over the past 50 years: 

> We will discuss how human efforts to maintain healthy colonies intersect with similar efforts by the bees, and how bee management and breeding protocols can affect disease traits in the short and long term.

* So, they cover pretty much all the pathogens and all the current theories about the honey bee immune system. Most interesting are their conclusions:

> Beekeeping practices rely on using antibiotic and pesticide treatments to control pathogens and parasites. This approach is not sustainable and leads to contamination of hive equipment.

> While beekeepers engage in many management tactics to reduce disease in their colonies, recent research and emerging risks indicate three management tools that are underutilized in beekeeping and are perhaps especially relevant.

> First, the design of modern bee boxes could be modified to allow the construction of a propolis envelope.

> Second, it would be beneficial to allow colonies to construct new wax brood combs yearly to prevent the build up of pathogens and pesticides in the wax.

> Finally, rates of horizontal transmission of pathogens are likely to be at an all-time high in modern beekeeping, presenting great challenges.

* This last item is where they recommend -- "where feasible" -- staying home. Actually, they don't come right out and say it, preferring terminology as this:

> The movement of colonies across regions or countries should be carried out with great caution, and only when critical for the honey bee industry. Lucrative pollination contracts have in many ways sustained beekeeping in North America and elsewhere. Nevertheless, wide ranging transport of bees, favors the sharing of parasites and pathogens. 

* They don't say, move bees only when critical to Big Ag! Nothing in the paper about probiotics or RNA interference. Minimize hive inputs, instead. You could boil it down to a return to an earlier type of beekeeping, which doesn't involve high tech solutions and avoids large scale movement of colonies. Not sure how useful such a message would be to commercial beekeepers.

Socialized medicine: Individual and communal disease barriers in honey bees
Jay D. Evans, Marla Spivak

             ***********************************************
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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2