> I also
--- On Sat, 10/10/09, Allen Dick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I also used the word, "too". What constitutes, "too",
> depends on the circumstances.
I understand there are always a few exceptions and always the obscure exception, like the need to consider low brood viability will occur in some breeding techniques, and I will allow that, and that must be noted. But as when most folks talk beekeeping, I too am referring to the other 99% of beekeeping, not necessarily the obscurity.
My main point of the letter is to discuss the point that it can be very difficult to determine the causes of low brood viability. And therefore, to assume that being too discriminatory against spotty patterns might select against hygienic behavior is subject to too many variables, to such great extent that is may not be a good rule to follow, IMO.
> Like what? Seems to me that if one ignores it, one
> does so with an understanding of why so the consequences
> should all have been considered. If not, Bob's advice should
> prevail, but, Bob's goals and your goals are very different,
> as are mine.
I loved Bobs letter also, and will get to it soon.
But having ‘allot of consequences to consider‘, in most beekeeping, where breeding results are based on the selection of known variables, IMO, substantially mitigates the practicality of advice which introduces too many variables and unknowns. Letting a spotty pattern prevail with the thinking that one is promoting hygienic behavior, can actually be a selection for colonies having higher mite loads, which might reflect a spotty pattern. It can also be a selection against other resistant traits that that deal with mites prior to cell invasion, which likewise, would tend to reduce substantially the ’visual symptoms’ of hygienic behavior. A spotty pattern can be reflective of mite pressure in the population, it can be reflective of inbreeding… and the list goes on,,,,
>
> I took a look and can see a few obvious things, like
> poisoned brood along the wires, sagged comb, individual
> cells empty with the six adjacent cells also removed (!),
> pollen packed into cells among the brood, signs of an
> apparently older queen, but without a context (season, hive
> size, etc.), and having limited time -- and not knowing
> where you are going with this --
I gave you my word that it is not a ‘trap’. I wish to hear what the cause of the low brood viability is. My point being, to ignore a symptom, you MUST know, or have a good idea of the cause or be willing to face unintended consequences.
>
> OK. Ah-ha!
>
> I think I have it figured out now, and can see this is an
> exercise that is going to take some time. I now see
> that you have two shots of each frame, taken at some
> unspecified time interval. It looks as if you have
> done a pinprick test on each at the points marked.
>
> I assume that our assignment is to assess the general brood
> pattern of each and relate it to the results of the pinprick
> test.
>
> Correct?
There is no Ah-ha to it, I told you it is not a trap. I’m not here to try and make anybody look silly or trap anyone, just to learn. These are just the pics that best illustrated a poor brood pattern, and I wanted to hear opinions on that aspect of the photos, has nothing to do with the pin prick method. I will say that my respect for Bobs expertise on these matters has been confirmed once again with his recent reply. Besides his bravery in engaging in such matters, he also did not stick to my ‘preset scrip‘, but analyzed the frames and reported on what he saw, and that, is something I watch for, being IMO, the trademark of the highly skilled, independent thinker.
Best Wishes,
Joe W
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles/
***********************************************
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
Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L
|
