Apistan resistance, or fluvalinate resistance... and Coumaphous resistance occur because of one or both of two instances.
1) genetic adaptabiltiy to the insecticide
and
2) Misuse, typically under-dosing the target mite, where by at lower levels of the active chemical the resistance to the chemical is accelerated versus natural resistance developing
the 7 to 12 year cycle is based on American usage which can be two to three times the application of Apistan as Canadian beekeepers can apply. The Coumaphous resistence appears to be more of resisten mites on wheel spreading in the sothern US rather than individuals misusing the product. I have read that several times now.
At the IPM seminar in Edmonto this past month the term REVERSION was bantered about with the Italy experiment being the proof. So with out treating your bees with Apistan for 5 years the developed resistance to Fluvalinate is countered to a degree of some 99%. Mixxing treatment between two resistant mites only prolong or extends the reversion of resistance.
Genetics and wise genetic selection, IMO will be the answer, hopefully sooner than later.
The quicker the reliance by beekeepers on chemicals to counter mites is realized the better all will be.
I had looked at the recent ABJ, packaged bees from the states do not look any more price positive than the current NZ and Ozzie stock... ??? how come? 60 65 USD for a 3 pounder?
Border
-
Ian
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 55
- Joined: March 14th, 2003, 3:09 pm
- Location: Mb, Canada
>>If we are not using coumophos, and the CFIA is not going to allow it except in very limited ways, then what difference does it make if we import coumophos resistant mites? None. And so the possibility of importing coumophos resistant mites is a non-issue, or a poor one as a reason for limiting cross-border traffic.
In my beekeeping operation, fluvalinate still is effective against the v mite. Neighbouring beekeepers have found mites resistant to Apistan treatment last year, and are now currently using prescribed Coumophos under emergency hive treatment. If/when we import coumophos resistant mites, what sure treatment do we have left?? Why erase a hive treatment option if we don't have to?
In my opinion, importation of resistant mites, and resistant AFB are not non-issues. I take this very seriously, because if I can't treat my hives for disease, then what do I do? I will be in the same pannic situation as the Florida beekeepers are in right now. Heavey infestation of resistant untreatable diseased hives, with their stock dwindling....
Ian
In my beekeeping operation, fluvalinate still is effective against the v mite. Neighbouring beekeepers have found mites resistant to Apistan treatment last year, and are now currently using prescribed Coumophos under emergency hive treatment. If/when we import coumophos resistant mites, what sure treatment do we have left?? Why erase a hive treatment option if we don't have to?
In my opinion, importation of resistant mites, and resistant AFB are not non-issues. I take this very seriously, because if I can't treat my hives for disease, then what do I do? I will be in the same pannic situation as the Florida beekeepers are in right now. Heavey infestation of resistant untreatable diseased hives, with their stock dwindling....
Ian
-
Allen Dick
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1824
- Joined: February 25th, 2003, 10:09 pm
- Location: Swalwell, Alberta
- Contact:
I don't mind people disagreeing with me at all -- especially if they do so politely -- as most do. In fact I like some dissent. I know that I don't have all the facts and anything I learn -- including opinions -- helps me improve my grasp of the situations we face. The whole point of this forum is to encourage differing views so that we can examine the ideas and work on solutions.
Historically, we have all been spread out across the country and limited in the information we have to work with. Hopefully, through fora like this, we can now communicate more frequently, and thus gain better understanding of the differing needs -- and fears -- of people in various regions and engaged in differing aspects of beekeeping.
Thanks to all who are contributing.
allen
Historically, we have all been spread out across the country and limited in the information we have to work with. Hopefully, through fora like this, we can now communicate more frequently, and thus gain better understanding of the differing needs -- and fears -- of people in various regions and engaged in differing aspects of beekeeping.
Thanks to all who are contributing.
allen
-
cpecka
An American Perspective
Instead of looking for the next latest and greatest chemical or antibiotic to put into my colonies I’m approaching this dilemma from the position that the Mites and the brood diseases are always going to be there. Therefore, I’m investing heavily into resistant, hygienic lines to naturally counter our current owes in beekeeping.
Looking strongly at the NWC as they are breed Mite Resistant & Hygienic and have document results and at the Russian. I’m breaking with the strong tradition here to maintain Italian colonies and running on the same chemical treadmill. I’m tired of cutting the profit margin for the treatments and if they are as good as they are reported I’ll pay the extra for the new queens because in the long run I’ll find it more profitable to maintain my own strain of resistant, hygienic producers.
For you in Canada, I truly hope that you resolve your border issues as I feel you may be able to stop your treadmill of chemical treatments with the proper stock. The costs for man-hours for two trips to your yards, actual treatments materials, and the building resistance of the mites to the treatments are far more than the cost of new queens. This summer my treatment cycle ends.
I’m small, but I’m willing to risk the risk because I want to receive the rewards
Looking strongly at the NWC as they are breed Mite Resistant & Hygienic and have document results and at the Russian. I’m breaking with the strong tradition here to maintain Italian colonies and running on the same chemical treadmill. I’m tired of cutting the profit margin for the treatments and if they are as good as they are reported I’ll pay the extra for the new queens because in the long run I’ll find it more profitable to maintain my own strain of resistant, hygienic producers.
For you in Canada, I truly hope that you resolve your border issues as I feel you may be able to stop your treadmill of chemical treatments with the proper stock. The costs for man-hours for two trips to your yards, actual treatments materials, and the building resistance of the mites to the treatments are far more than the cost of new queens. This summer my treatment cycle ends.
I’m small, but I’m willing to risk the risk because I want to receive the rewards
-
Tom
That is excellent Chuck.
We can only envy you your ability to search high and low among some of the many bee breeders doing the best development in this field. As long as the border remains closed, our own bee breeders and hence the rest of us, will remain at a disadvantage. This is my point in arguing the other side of this case.
Reviewing the postings on this topic, one might summarize this way:
1. Coumophos resistant mites
In Canada, we are in the second year of a one-year only emergency registration. If you believe the CFIA, then after this year coumophos is history here. If you did not use it, then you missed the chance; if you did use it, then your mites probably are already half way to being coumophos resistant. I still think this is now a non-issue in the border debate.
2. Apistan resistant mites
We already have these in Canada, and the next two years will see lots more. If you are a prairie beekeeper who wintered in the congested areas of southern B.C., probably, you will take some back with you to Alberta, especially the longer your bees linger. We already have apistan resistant mites in Canada, so this is now a non-issue in the border debate.
Allen talks about beekeepers in remote areas without mites who might benefit from some protection from the free flow of packages. While this is a noble thought, it is mostly beside the point. If these folks are prudent they are constantly monitoring, because the probability is that they will get them sooner or later. And, when they do, they will get the apistan resistant, or near apistan resistant ones, in any event. While it is true, that an increase in package traffic might make these folks at higher risk, the question is more whether the economic trade off is right. Put that way, I think the case is one of arguing for the protection of a small minority at the expense of a much larger portion of the industry.
3. Resistant AFB
Allen likes to call it SAFB. We already have this in Canada. In BC we like to blame Alberta beekeepers for bringing it our way. Any mobility of bees increases the risk of spreading it, but the prudent beekeeper who is already switching to Hygenic queens and other general ways of dealing with AFB is ahead. Gee, too bad we don't have more access to queens and packages from the U.S. where the development of these genes is as much as a year or two ahead.
4. Small hive beetle
Border closure or not, the SMB will make its way to Canada if it is going to survive in the north. Will it survive in the north? Hope some CAPA folks are working on this because it is the only one of all these border issues that remain. The CAPA folks actually seem to be toeing the party line that the SMB will not be a general problem in Canada, but who is doing the research? No question SMB is a problem in some places, but why has its spread been comparatively confined in the US?
5. Africanized bees
Well, the more recent info from the experts seems to be a theory that AHB will not become a general problem above a certain latitude or above a certain altitude. It is certain that, if we open the border for packages and we queens, we will get the occasional AHB. But the occasional AHB, as now happens in the norther states, is probably not a sufficient reason for the border to remain closed. How long will they resemble problem AHB when they get here? If AHB is not a problem in Washington State, then why is it going to be a problem in the Peace River?
In sum, the case for continued closure is very thin it seems to me. I suspect the CFIA impact study, when they get around to releasing it, is going to echo the points I have made above. And the prudent beekeeper should be planning for queen importations to be the thin edge of the wedge that will expand shortly to packages. Allen's year or two is probably right. From this point of view, the practical issue now is comb, or no comb. That is actually where this debate should now focus.
Cheers,
Tom
We can only envy you your ability to search high and low among some of the many bee breeders doing the best development in this field. As long as the border remains closed, our own bee breeders and hence the rest of us, will remain at a disadvantage. This is my point in arguing the other side of this case.
Reviewing the postings on this topic, one might summarize this way:
1. Coumophos resistant mites
In Canada, we are in the second year of a one-year only emergency registration. If you believe the CFIA, then after this year coumophos is history here. If you did not use it, then you missed the chance; if you did use it, then your mites probably are already half way to being coumophos resistant. I still think this is now a non-issue in the border debate.
2. Apistan resistant mites
We already have these in Canada, and the next two years will see lots more. If you are a prairie beekeeper who wintered in the congested areas of southern B.C., probably, you will take some back with you to Alberta, especially the longer your bees linger. We already have apistan resistant mites in Canada, so this is now a non-issue in the border debate.
Allen talks about beekeepers in remote areas without mites who might benefit from some protection from the free flow of packages. While this is a noble thought, it is mostly beside the point. If these folks are prudent they are constantly monitoring, because the probability is that they will get them sooner or later. And, when they do, they will get the apistan resistant, or near apistan resistant ones, in any event. While it is true, that an increase in package traffic might make these folks at higher risk, the question is more whether the economic trade off is right. Put that way, I think the case is one of arguing for the protection of a small minority at the expense of a much larger portion of the industry.
3. Resistant AFB
Allen likes to call it SAFB. We already have this in Canada. In BC we like to blame Alberta beekeepers for bringing it our way. Any mobility of bees increases the risk of spreading it, but the prudent beekeeper who is already switching to Hygenic queens and other general ways of dealing with AFB is ahead. Gee, too bad we don't have more access to queens and packages from the U.S. where the development of these genes is as much as a year or two ahead.
4. Small hive beetle
Border closure or not, the SMB will make its way to Canada if it is going to survive in the north. Will it survive in the north? Hope some CAPA folks are working on this because it is the only one of all these border issues that remain. The CAPA folks actually seem to be toeing the party line that the SMB will not be a general problem in Canada, but who is doing the research? No question SMB is a problem in some places, but why has its spread been comparatively confined in the US?
5. Africanized bees
Well, the more recent info from the experts seems to be a theory that AHB will not become a general problem above a certain latitude or above a certain altitude. It is certain that, if we open the border for packages and we queens, we will get the occasional AHB. But the occasional AHB, as now happens in the norther states, is probably not a sufficient reason for the border to remain closed. How long will they resemble problem AHB when they get here? If AHB is not a problem in Washington State, then why is it going to be a problem in the Peace River?
In sum, the case for continued closure is very thin it seems to me. I suspect the CFIA impact study, when they get around to releasing it, is going to echo the points I have made above. And the prudent beekeeper should be planning for queen importations to be the thin edge of the wedge that will expand shortly to packages. Allen's year or two is probably right. From this point of view, the practical issue now is comb, or no comb. That is actually where this debate should now focus.
Cheers,
Tom
-
Allen Dick
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1824
- Joined: February 25th, 2003, 10:09 pm
- Location: Swalwell, Alberta
- Contact:
Your points are very well made. I think that we've covered the major aspects, other than bees on comb.
What becomes apparent is that the differering conclusions that people reach are a result of placing different emphasis on differing positive and negative points.
Where people live, what their current disease/mite situation is, and how far they are from travelled routes and migratory beekeeping will have a big effect on perspective.
Moreover, some are optimists and think that the solutions out there -- from oxalic acid to Russian bees -- will solve their problems. On the other hand, the pessimists think nothing will work and that we are all doomed.
The degree of education and ability of each beekeeper factors strongly, too. Some beekeepers are able to monitor, analyse, communicate and draw on the available expertise; others are less able to understand exactly what is happening.
Luck factors into this, and although it is true that, to a great extent, we make our own luck, there are wildcards out there that can take even the most savvy beekeeper by surprise, and sometimes several surprises come up one after another.
Obviously this is a situation that calls for some give and take, and no matter what decision is made, there will be winners and losers. Those that are thriving under the current regime may find that they are less successful if bee movement increases in their region. Others who have had a hard time keeping going at present may do better.
I guess we have to consider what does the best good for our society and our industry at large, and go that way.
I doubt we will ever get everyone to agree. The best we can hope for is to listen carefully to everyone, make compromises where possible to limit any adverse effects, and try to stay friends no matter which way things shake out.
allen
What becomes apparent is that the differering conclusions that people reach are a result of placing different emphasis on differing positive and negative points.
Where people live, what their current disease/mite situation is, and how far they are from travelled routes and migratory beekeeping will have a big effect on perspective.
Moreover, some are optimists and think that the solutions out there -- from oxalic acid to Russian bees -- will solve their problems. On the other hand, the pessimists think nothing will work and that we are all doomed.
The degree of education and ability of each beekeeper factors strongly, too. Some beekeepers are able to monitor, analyse, communicate and draw on the available expertise; others are less able to understand exactly what is happening.
Luck factors into this, and although it is true that, to a great extent, we make our own luck, there are wildcards out there that can take even the most savvy beekeeper by surprise, and sometimes several surprises come up one after another.
Obviously this is a situation that calls for some give and take, and no matter what decision is made, there will be winners and losers. Those that are thriving under the current regime may find that they are less successful if bee movement increases in their region. Others who have had a hard time keeping going at present may do better.
I guess we have to consider what does the best good for our society and our industry at large, and go that way.
I doubt we will ever get everyone to agree. The best we can hope for is to listen carefully to everyone, make compromises where possible to limit any adverse effects, and try to stay friends no matter which way things shake out.
allen
-
cpecka
-
Allen Dick
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1824
- Joined: February 25th, 2003, 10:09 pm
- Location: Swalwell, Alberta
- Contact:
Yes. I recall stopping at the Floods scale in the 80s and being asked if I was bringing bees up from the States in the hives I was bringing back from BC.
I said, "No", that bringing hives of bees up from the States into Canada in hives was not permitted and suggested he had seen package bees.
The scaleman insisted that some folks from the States had hives full of bees on their truck when they stopped there every year.
I've reported this on the net more than once and never heard a comment, one way or the other, before.
Oh!, those good old days!
allen
I said, "No", that bringing hives of bees up from the States into Canada in hives was not permitted and suggested he had seen package bees.
The scaleman insisted that some folks from the States had hives full of bees on their truck when they stopped there every year.
I've reported this on the net more than once and never heard a comment, one way or the other, before.
Oh!, those good old days!
allen
-
Ian
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 55
- Joined: March 14th, 2003, 3:09 pm
- Location: Mb, Canada
I'm sorry but I do not agree with you. In my opinion bring in disease is not a non issue. I realize reisistance are already present in places in Canada, but not near the severity that is found throughout the US. Yes, the severity will come, but in time. Why would we want to flood the country with desease resistance when there is just a sprinkling found throughout right now? Accelorateing the disease spead to every area of the country does not make sence to me and allowing packages across the boarder would/could do just that.
And with the small hive beetle, I don't know either how it will adapt to this climate. "I hope" its life cycle restricts it too much to live up here in the cold. What not a great way to find out by bringing packages up here to see. I am not too worried about it living in COLD Manitoba, but in warmer milder climates as Alberta, southern Ontario and places in BC, I would be a little edgy about giving it the chance to survive. And if it will survive up here, then why not let it find its own way up, and buy us about five or so years? I feel the longer we delay the pest from comming, the closer we might be to alternative was to deal with it.
I am in agreement though with the importation of queens across the boarder and have been right from the start. I feel it could be our compramise. I think it would help satisfy the need to bring in American genetics and the risks of disease transfer are much smaller than they are with packages.
Yes I agree the development of these queens are two years ahead of us, and I feel bring in queen will help us catch up. They have issolated some resistance to AFB and the mites and they are on the right track, but have not quite gotten there yet. Perhaps we can aid the development to fully exploit the trait. Tell me how bringing packages up will help develop the trait any quicker than soely with queens?
Ian
And with the small hive beetle, I don't know either how it will adapt to this climate. "I hope" its life cycle restricts it too much to live up here in the cold. What not a great way to find out by bringing packages up here to see. I am not too worried about it living in COLD Manitoba, but in warmer milder climates as Alberta, southern Ontario and places in BC, I would be a little edgy about giving it the chance to survive. And if it will survive up here, then why not let it find its own way up, and buy us about five or so years? I feel the longer we delay the pest from comming, the closer we might be to alternative was to deal with it.
I am in agreement though with the importation of queens across the boarder and have been right from the start. I feel it could be our compramise. I think it would help satisfy the need to bring in American genetics and the risks of disease transfer are much smaller than they are with packages.
Yes I agree the development of these queens are two years ahead of us, and I feel bring in queen will help us catch up. They have issolated some resistance to AFB and the mites and they are on the right track, but have not quite gotten there yet. Perhaps we can aid the development to fully exploit the trait. Tell me how bringing packages up will help develop the trait any quicker than soely with queens?
Ian
-
Allen Dick
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1824
- Joined: February 25th, 2003, 10:09 pm
- Location: Swalwell, Alberta
- Contact:
I guess we all are getting busy lately. I know I am.
Anyhow, the risk analysis is out now and available at http://www.honeycouncil.ca/docs/CFIARisk0303.pdf
I pretty well agree 100% with the risk assessment.
AHB is a minor threat, and so are most other worries. The main concern right now -- and one that just came up recently -- is mites resistant to Apistan and Coumaphos.
Indiscriminate import and distribution of packages from the US could result in widespread problems in areas that currently have few problems with varroa. Until we are certain that varroa can be handled without Apistan or Checkmite+, or able to establish a quarantine area that will be respected, I think we are unwise to import packages that are likely to bring in resistant mites. If we wanted to be sure to avoid the resistant mites, and still get packages, we would need a protocol, and that means co-operation on both sides of the border before we could safely import.
However, there may be some areas of the country that are willing to accept the resistant mite problem -- maybe beekeepers there plan to kill hives every year -- and if the beekeepers in such areas can form a consensus, and form a quarantine area, and also guarantee that any bees brought into that area do not get distributed out of that area, imports to those regions *only* would be reasonable. I think this was originally what some Peace River beekeepers suggested.
The unfortunate thing is that people don't seem to be able to get together and co-operate on this, and, if some can't work together with people who disagree on this simple matter, and establish trust, how can anyone believe they will work together to maintain a quarantine?
When mites first came into Alberta, quarantine areas were proposed, but we decided not to have quarantine areas because we knew that they would not be honoured. Some beekeepers just do as they please and there is no will to enforce draconian laws, even if they were passed. The reason that Alberta has rAFB and resistant mites is largely because a small number of beekeepers continued to (or even began to) take hives to southern B.C. -- and back -- even when they knew the risk, and although their home area was free of these threats. If, everyone were to agree to quarantine the Peace and allow packages only there, would everyone respect the quarantine? I don't think anyone believes that would be possible.
When any stock is imported to an area, there are other things to think about besides disease and pests. Although package bees would benefit some who regard bee stock as disposable, here are some other considerations:
1. The stock used in package bees is not good wintering stock, and although those who would be package beekeepers are suffering now, those who winter would suffer from dilution of their wintering stock with southern lines if packages came in
2. Those in the proposed package zone who have found a solution in migrating south in the winter would be confined to a package quarantine zone. Would they accept that?
These days, I am hearing from two camps, each claiming the other is unreasonable. Neither is talking to the other, however, each camp is working hard to discredit the other. The result is that both groups look bad. Frankly I find either fanatic group as distasteful as the other and hate to see otherwise reasonable and respectable people spouting propaganda and abuse for others.
Instead of compromise, 'all or nothing' positions are being established by both sides and the end result is that both sides are going to lose. Government people are going to hate to see any beekeeper headed in their direction, and they are just going to say 'No" to all requests.
Moreover these groups are going to lose support and credibilty with other moderate beekeepers, and the government people who are caught in the middle.
Progress usually comes in stages, as people learn to accept new ideas. Currently, there is an effort to get agreement to import queens from the mainland US. Medhat has worked hard on this and the headway achieved was largely due to his good name. This was to be a first step to establish trust for future protocols and co-operation, but the effort is now falling apart.
I think this risk assessment is as fair as we are going to see. If it were not for the doubly resistant mites, I think we would have seen a good case for packages everywhere in Canada in the near future. As it is, I think it is out of the question -- unless a quarantine area is set up, and that will, not happen with all the bad feelings that are being generated by the conflict.
We had a chance of getting queens from the mainland US this spring, but that hope is fading fast due to the erosion of the support Alberta gained by careful negotiations and by Medhat's good name.
As it stands, IMO, we were very close to a first step, but are increasingly are very likely to get nothing, and perhaps we'll even lose Medhat. He has worked hard for the beekeepers and needs support and encouragement, not added difficulty.
Given the honest risk assessment we have now received, we *can* get queens if we work together, and we may be able to get packages one day when we can demonstrate that we are co-operative and trustworthy.
Until then...
allen
Anyhow, the risk analysis is out now and available at http://www.honeycouncil.ca/docs/CFIARisk0303.pdf
I pretty well agree 100% with the risk assessment.
AHB is a minor threat, and so are most other worries. The main concern right now -- and one that just came up recently -- is mites resistant to Apistan and Coumaphos.
Indiscriminate import and distribution of packages from the US could result in widespread problems in areas that currently have few problems with varroa. Until we are certain that varroa can be handled without Apistan or Checkmite+, or able to establish a quarantine area that will be respected, I think we are unwise to import packages that are likely to bring in resistant mites. If we wanted to be sure to avoid the resistant mites, and still get packages, we would need a protocol, and that means co-operation on both sides of the border before we could safely import.
However, there may be some areas of the country that are willing to accept the resistant mite problem -- maybe beekeepers there plan to kill hives every year -- and if the beekeepers in such areas can form a consensus, and form a quarantine area, and also guarantee that any bees brought into that area do not get distributed out of that area, imports to those regions *only* would be reasonable. I think this was originally what some Peace River beekeepers suggested.
The unfortunate thing is that people don't seem to be able to get together and co-operate on this, and, if some can't work together with people who disagree on this simple matter, and establish trust, how can anyone believe they will work together to maintain a quarantine?
When mites first came into Alberta, quarantine areas were proposed, but we decided not to have quarantine areas because we knew that they would not be honoured. Some beekeepers just do as they please and there is no will to enforce draconian laws, even if they were passed. The reason that Alberta has rAFB and resistant mites is largely because a small number of beekeepers continued to (or even began to) take hives to southern B.C. -- and back -- even when they knew the risk, and although their home area was free of these threats. If, everyone were to agree to quarantine the Peace and allow packages only there, would everyone respect the quarantine? I don't think anyone believes that would be possible.
When any stock is imported to an area, there are other things to think about besides disease and pests. Although package bees would benefit some who regard bee stock as disposable, here are some other considerations:
1. The stock used in package bees is not good wintering stock, and although those who would be package beekeepers are suffering now, those who winter would suffer from dilution of their wintering stock with southern lines if packages came in
2. Those in the proposed package zone who have found a solution in migrating south in the winter would be confined to a package quarantine zone. Would they accept that?
These days, I am hearing from two camps, each claiming the other is unreasonable. Neither is talking to the other, however, each camp is working hard to discredit the other. The result is that both groups look bad. Frankly I find either fanatic group as distasteful as the other and hate to see otherwise reasonable and respectable people spouting propaganda and abuse for others.
Instead of compromise, 'all or nothing' positions are being established by both sides and the end result is that both sides are going to lose. Government people are going to hate to see any beekeeper headed in their direction, and they are just going to say 'No" to all requests.
Moreover these groups are going to lose support and credibilty with other moderate beekeepers, and the government people who are caught in the middle.
Progress usually comes in stages, as people learn to accept new ideas. Currently, there is an effort to get agreement to import queens from the mainland US. Medhat has worked hard on this and the headway achieved was largely due to his good name. This was to be a first step to establish trust for future protocols and co-operation, but the effort is now falling apart.
I think this risk assessment is as fair as we are going to see. If it were not for the doubly resistant mites, I think we would have seen a good case for packages everywhere in Canada in the near future. As it is, I think it is out of the question -- unless a quarantine area is set up, and that will, not happen with all the bad feelings that are being generated by the conflict.
We had a chance of getting queens from the mainland US this spring, but that hope is fading fast due to the erosion of the support Alberta gained by careful negotiations and by Medhat's good name.
As it stands, IMO, we were very close to a first step, but are increasingly are very likely to get nothing, and perhaps we'll even lose Medhat. He has worked hard for the beekeepers and needs support and encouragement, not added difficulty.
Given the honest risk assessment we have now received, we *can* get queens if we work together, and we may be able to get packages one day when we can demonstrate that we are co-operative and trustworthy.
Until then...
allen
-
Ian
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 55
- Joined: March 14th, 2003, 3:09 pm
- Location: Mb, Canada
>>The reason that Alberta has rAFB and resistant mites is largely because a small number of beekeepers continued to (or even began to) take hives to southern B.C. -- and back -- even when they knew the risk, and although their home area was free of these threats
Reminds me of how the mite first introduced itself here in Mb.
>>If, everyone were to agree to quarantine the Peace and allow packages only there, would everyone respect the quarantine? I don't think anyone believes that would be possible.
It is totally imposible, if you as me. It would, and could work very well, but with everyones changing agendas, an external reglitory influence would need to be inforced. I can't see that being accepted 100%
Ian
Reminds me of how the mite first introduced itself here in Mb.
>>If, everyone were to agree to quarantine the Peace and allow packages only there, would everyone respect the quarantine? I don't think anyone believes that would be possible.
It is totally imposible, if you as me. It would, and could work very well, but with everyones changing agendas, an external reglitory influence would need to be inforced. I can't see that being accepted 100%
Ian
-
Tom
I hope many beekeepers in Canada take some time to read the risk assessment at the link Allen posted above to the CHC site. No matter where you live, this document will be at the bottom of many debates you will hear in the next two years. I would not endorse it as completely as Allen, but we can give it a more careful analysis later when it has been more widely read. For what I am going to propose below, these points are unimportant.
On balance, Allen's assessment of where we are may be accurate, realistic and justifiably pessimistic. It will be a set back for Canadian beekeeping, in the battle against varroa, if we are not able to speed up the process of improving our genetics with better stock. On the other hand, I think it has to be admitted that bringing in queens under the proposed method would, or will, not result in any large flood. Certainly not in year 1. It would be a disaster if this wonderfully bold initiative discouraged Medhat, who I think is justifiably widely admired.
I can tell from the colourfully worded emails I have been receiving from non-members of the site that the discussion here is being monitored by quite a few people. People east of here who oppose any hint of a more open border should know that Quesnel is not in the Peace River, and that I am not one of those folks with a desire to return to a glorious age of package beekeeping. I am a new beekeeper (having had bees less than 15 years: have never known anything but varroa-infested bees) I am a weekend beekeeper (having never had as many as 500 colonies) I have never used packages, or purchased any bees for that matter, other than the first few. I have always overwintered my hives successfully, splitting my own bees to make up losses, and have no plan to buy packages even if they become available.
Incidentally, if you read the risk assessment, before we all pass off AHB and the SHB as low risks, you will note southern B.C. is one of the areas considered at risk for both. This will make compromises even more difficult here than in some other places because beekeepers in those areas have very justifiable concerns that need to be addressed.
And, I should make the point on the spread of rAFB that, in B.C. we blame its import on Alberta beekeepers wintering here as it seems less widespread in B.C., and mostly seems to occur in operations that have had contact with Alberta bees. Not that I think anything is to be gained from pointing fingers, but I could not let Allen's contention pass without making the usual party response. Of course, this is not to say that Alberta beekeepers could be spreading it between themselves when they pack so closely together when wintering in some areas here.
Now, if you are still with me, if you read Allen's nice summary you will note he talks of "indiscriminate import and distribution." This is not what I would advocate. My comments are in the context of the possibility of having protocols for the importation of genetically improved queens, not all queens. Now, if we can have protocols for the importation of such queens, why not have protocols for the importation of packages consisting of genetically improved queens and bees? And not indiscriminate importation and distribution.
Supposing we all agree that the original quarantine idea is a non-starter in a practical sense. But suppose package importation was limited to packages from beekeepers with stock that can survive in rVarroa conditions? That is to varroa tolerant bees. Would that not be a good thing?
Suppose further that this importation was limited to say mainland B.C. (where we are already dealing with rVarroa) and Alberta. Though I think areas of Manitoba coping with rVarroa might also find the availability of a ready supply of varroa tolerant bees a good additional tool.
Or are these not the elements of a workable compromise? One dealing with both the shortage of bees and the need for dealing with rVarroa?
Cheers,
Tom
On balance, Allen's assessment of where we are may be accurate, realistic and justifiably pessimistic. It will be a set back for Canadian beekeeping, in the battle against varroa, if we are not able to speed up the process of improving our genetics with better stock. On the other hand, I think it has to be admitted that bringing in queens under the proposed method would, or will, not result in any large flood. Certainly not in year 1. It would be a disaster if this wonderfully bold initiative discouraged Medhat, who I think is justifiably widely admired.
I can tell from the colourfully worded emails I have been receiving from non-members of the site that the discussion here is being monitored by quite a few people. People east of here who oppose any hint of a more open border should know that Quesnel is not in the Peace River, and that I am not one of those folks with a desire to return to a glorious age of package beekeeping. I am a new beekeeper (having had bees less than 15 years: have never known anything but varroa-infested bees) I am a weekend beekeeper (having never had as many as 500 colonies) I have never used packages, or purchased any bees for that matter, other than the first few. I have always overwintered my hives successfully, splitting my own bees to make up losses, and have no plan to buy packages even if they become available.
Incidentally, if you read the risk assessment, before we all pass off AHB and the SHB as low risks, you will note southern B.C. is one of the areas considered at risk for both. This will make compromises even more difficult here than in some other places because beekeepers in those areas have very justifiable concerns that need to be addressed.
And, I should make the point on the spread of rAFB that, in B.C. we blame its import on Alberta beekeepers wintering here as it seems less widespread in B.C., and mostly seems to occur in operations that have had contact with Alberta bees. Not that I think anything is to be gained from pointing fingers, but I could not let Allen's contention pass without making the usual party response. Of course, this is not to say that Alberta beekeepers could be spreading it between themselves when they pack so closely together when wintering in some areas here.
Now, if you are still with me, if you read Allen's nice summary you will note he talks of "indiscriminate import and distribution." This is not what I would advocate. My comments are in the context of the possibility of having protocols for the importation of genetically improved queens, not all queens. Now, if we can have protocols for the importation of such queens, why not have protocols for the importation of packages consisting of genetically improved queens and bees? And not indiscriminate importation and distribution.
Supposing we all agree that the original quarantine idea is a non-starter in a practical sense. But suppose package importation was limited to packages from beekeepers with stock that can survive in rVarroa conditions? That is to varroa tolerant bees. Would that not be a good thing?
Suppose further that this importation was limited to say mainland B.C. (where we are already dealing with rVarroa) and Alberta. Though I think areas of Manitoba coping with rVarroa might also find the availability of a ready supply of varroa tolerant bees a good additional tool.
Or are these not the elements of a workable compromise? One dealing with both the shortage of bees and the need for dealing with rVarroa?
Cheers,
Tom
-
Allen Dick
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1824
- Joined: February 25th, 2003, 10:09 pm
- Location: Swalwell, Alberta
- Contact:
As always, good comments.
I also want to be very clear that I am not intending the above comment in any disparaging way; I respect every beekeeper i meet and, besides, many of those who have problems with understanding are very intelligent and much better operators than I am. Many could point out blind spots in my thinking. What I am suspecting, though is that many rely on what they hear from the most vocal people in their region and are not exposed to a range of ideas. I also have become aware that many do not have any idea how many beekeepers in their areas are moving bees around, and from where.
This protocol was a compromise designed to meet the objections of those afraid of bringing in <i>any</i> bees, and was close to consensus. As for packages, -- no matter what stock -- no consensus is possible at this time. Some have tried to bulldoze the issue, but I am told that it is unlikley to succeed in doing much except polarizing opposition to even moderate issues like queen imports under strict protocols. Maybe I am wrong and it will work, but, if so, I am not hearing from those who have any evidence it will succeed this year.
When that consensus fell apart, it condemned us to NO imports until the current ban expires, or a new consensus forms. Compounding the issue is the fact that , in this new wartime era of heightened awareness of international borders, the trend has swung away from wide open trade and a new restrictive mood is affecting all cross-border trade.
The irony here is that those most fervently in favour of border opening played into the hands of those adamently against, by torpedoing the only compromise cabable of actually being made into a protocol this year. If that compromise had been allowed to survive, trust and co-operation would have led to creation of a template that could be extended, if appropriate, to expanded, but limited imports.
As it is, the two most irrational and extreme factions co-operated -- probably unintentionally, and each for opposite reasons -- to destroy the moderate initiative.
There is still hope of getting carefully controlled imports of selected US queen stock, but I am told by those who are in the know, that the chances are getting much slimmer.
allen
Exactly. I can't claim to have read it in depth, but did skim it several times and can't see any huge flaws. I think they hit all the major and minor issues. As I commented previously,I would not endorse it as completely as Allen, but we can give it a more careful analysis later when it has been more widely read.
I think this stands as the crux of the issue. I've also discovered that many beekeepers are not well informed on all the issues, and are often swayed by emotional and incomplete arguements. I know I get pulled around by various factions, and until I step back and reflect on the whole, and set my own personal interests and fears aside, I am sucked into each perspective in turn until my head spins.What becomes apparent is that the differering conclusions that people reach are a result of placing different emphasis on differing positive and negative points.
For some reason, I don't seem to be in that loop. I have been harrangued by a few from time-to-time and, I guess, the one thing that impressed me the most in my years of writing on BEE-L and elsewhere, has been that many beekeepers cannot read or write very well, and many do not understand a great deal of what they read. I mention this in relation to the puzzling misunderstandings and gaps in understanding that seem to be commonplace in industry discussions.I can tell from the colourfully worded emails I have been receiving from non-members of the site that the discussion here is being monitored by quite a few people.
I also want to be very clear that I am not intending the above comment in any disparaging way; I respect every beekeeper i meet and, besides, many of those who have problems with understanding are very intelligent and much better operators than I am. Many could point out blind spots in my thinking. What I am suspecting, though is that many rely on what they hear from the most vocal people in their region and are not exposed to a range of ideas. I also have become aware that many do not have any idea how many beekeepers in their areas are moving bees around, and from where.
Just so the cards are all on the table, I may not even be able to claim to be a beekeeper in a month or two. As it stands, I may have sold more hives than I actually have (hope not). If all works out, I will wind up with anywhere from zero to 500 hives, so I guess that makes me a sideliner, hobbyist, or bystander...People... should know that Quesnel is not in the Peace River, and that I am not one of those folks with a desire to return to a glorious age of package beekeeping. I am a new beekeeper (having had bees less than 15 years: have never known anything but varroa-infested bees) I am a weekend beekeeper (having never had as many as 500 colonies) I have never used packages, or purchased any bees for that matter, other than the first few. I have always overwintered my hives successfully, splitting my own bees to make up losses, and have no plan to buy packages even if they become available.
Maybe I passed that by too quickly, but I guess I figured that these areas -- and some areas in Eastern Canada near the US border -- will get the scourges over the border from US bees adjacent to them. I've stood and looked across into the USA in Surrey and almost put hives on (was it) Zero Avenue, myself, when wintering in BC fifteen years back. In most of Alberta and Sask, there is little to attract beekeepers or bees to the border regions.Incidentally, if you read the risk assessment, before we all pass off AHB and the SHB as low risks, you will note southern B.C. is one of the areas considered at risk for both. This will make compromises even more difficult here than in some other places because beekeepers in those areas have very justifiable concerns that need to be addressed.
Interesting. SAFB was first discovered at SFU, not too far from the Kidd Bros plant. When Dave Westerfeld was up two years back, speaking to Alberta beekeepers, he mentioned that swabs made on open stacked Argentine drums containing bits of exposed honey in Florida, near new FLA SAFB outbreaks (some considerable time ago), showed SAFB spores.And, I should make the point on the spread of rAFB that, in B.C. we blame its import on Alberta beekeepers wintering here as it seems less widespread in B.C., and mostly seems to occur in operations that have had contact with Alberta bees.
Of course they could. Once a disease gets in, it gets around. Dense population areas are always vectors for disease.Of course, this is not to say that Alberta beekeepers could be spreading it between themselves when they pack so closely together when wintering in some areas here.
Well, the importation of queens is much less controversial than import of packages, due to the fact that both varroa and SHB will <i>certainly </i> ride in packages if they are in the region shipping. The idea was to bring in queens from a.) certified sources and to b.) examine them carefully. The proposed protocol is at http://www.honeycouncil.ca/docs/QueenImport.pdfNow, if you are still with me, if you read Allen's nice summary you will note he talks of "indiscriminate import and distribution." This is not what I would advocate. My comments are in the context of the possibility of having protocols for the importation of genetically improved queens, not all queens. Now, if we can have protocols for the importation of such queens, why not have protocols for the importation of packages consisting of genetically improved queens and bees? And not indiscriminate importation and distribution.
This protocol was a compromise designed to meet the objections of those afraid of bringing in <i>any</i> bees, and was close to consensus. As for packages, -- no matter what stock -- no consensus is possible at this time. Some have tried to bulldoze the issue, but I am told that it is unlikley to succeed in doing much except polarizing opposition to even moderate issues like queen imports under strict protocols. Maybe I am wrong and it will work, but, if so, I am not hearing from those who have any evidence it will succeed this year.
The problem is assembling a coalition of differing interests to support anything. The queens issue was the least controversial, since the risks were low and the benefits high for almost all concerned. It was almost a sure thing for a while.Supposing we all agree that the original quarantine idea i a non-starter in a practical sense. But suppose package importation was limited to packages from beekeepers with stock that can survive in rVarroa conditions? That is to varroa tolerant bees. Would that not be a good thing?
Suppose further that this importation was limited to say mainland B.C. (where we are already dealing with rVarroa) and Alberta. Though I think areas of Manitoba coping with rVarroa might also find the availability of a ready supply of varroa tolerant bees a good additional tool. Or are these not the elements of a workable compromise? One dealing with both the shortage of bees and the need for dealing with rVarroa?
When that consensus fell apart, it condemned us to NO imports until the current ban expires, or a new consensus forms. Compounding the issue is the fact that , in this new wartime era of heightened awareness of international borders, the trend has swung away from wide open trade and a new restrictive mood is affecting all cross-border trade.
The irony here is that those most fervently in favour of border opening played into the hands of those adamently against, by torpedoing the only compromise cabable of actually being made into a protocol this year. If that compromise had been allowed to survive, trust and co-operation would have led to creation of a template that could be extended, if appropriate, to expanded, but limited imports.
As it is, the two most irrational and extreme factions co-operated -- probably unintentionally, and each for opposite reasons -- to destroy the moderate initiative.
There is still hope of getting carefully controlled imports of selected US queen stock, but I am told by those who are in the know, that the chances are getting much slimmer.
allen
-
Ian
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 55
- Joined: March 14th, 2003, 3:09 pm
- Location: Mb, Canada
>>TOM-Now, if we can have protocols for the importation of such queens, why not have protocols for the importation of packages consisting of genetically improved queens and bees?
>>ALLEN-The irony here is that those most fervently in favour of border opening played into the hands of those adamently against, by torpedoing the only compromise cabable of actually being made into a protocol this year. If that compromise had been allowed to survive, trust and co-operation would have led to creation of a template that could be extended, if appropriate, to expanded, but limited imports.
It is really too bad. Allowing access to queens I think was a good a good compromise, for both sides. It seemed to make everyone moderatly happy, reduceing chances of disease spread, and providing the ability to take advantage of American genetics. Why did it fall apart? What happened? Perhaps the sides started taking an all or nothing stance,... which is ending up leaving each side with nothing!!
I think there is another adgenda here that is causing the problems. Cheap bees. And I agree, cheaper replacement stock would be an asset to any commercial operation, but the pros don't out weigh the cons, in my opinion. It is funny how the arguement is made of genetic being lost by not opening the boarder, though would't the importation of queens provide us with just that? Tell me how bringing packages up will lead us to any more of an advantage over soely queens?
>>many beekeepers cannot read or write very well, and many do not understand a great deal of what they read. I mention this in relation to the puzzling misunderstandings and gaps in understanding that seem to be commonplace in industry discussions.
>>I respect every beekeeper i meet and, besides, many of those who have problems with understanding are very intelligent and much better operators than I am
Allen, I don't agree with you here. Just becasue someone doesn't see face to face with you does not mean their opinions lack knoledge and understanding of the issue. That was a real ignorant thing to say... All the beekeepers I know stand on issues as they see it, as I and you do. Becasue Tom holds an opinion different than mine, doesn't mean either one of us lacks the understanding of the issue at hand. We both hold different opinions, thats all.,
Ian
>>ALLEN-The irony here is that those most fervently in favour of border opening played into the hands of those adamently against, by torpedoing the only compromise cabable of actually being made into a protocol this year. If that compromise had been allowed to survive, trust and co-operation would have led to creation of a template that could be extended, if appropriate, to expanded, but limited imports.
It is really too bad. Allowing access to queens I think was a good a good compromise, for both sides. It seemed to make everyone moderatly happy, reduceing chances of disease spread, and providing the ability to take advantage of American genetics. Why did it fall apart? What happened? Perhaps the sides started taking an all or nothing stance,... which is ending up leaving each side with nothing!!
I think there is another adgenda here that is causing the problems. Cheap bees. And I agree, cheaper replacement stock would be an asset to any commercial operation, but the pros don't out weigh the cons, in my opinion. It is funny how the arguement is made of genetic being lost by not opening the boarder, though would't the importation of queens provide us with just that? Tell me how bringing packages up will lead us to any more of an advantage over soely queens?
>>many beekeepers cannot read or write very well, and many do not understand a great deal of what they read. I mention this in relation to the puzzling misunderstandings and gaps in understanding that seem to be commonplace in industry discussions.
>>I respect every beekeeper i meet and, besides, many of those who have problems with understanding are very intelligent and much better operators than I am
Allen, I don't agree with you here. Just becasue someone doesn't see face to face with you does not mean their opinions lack knoledge and understanding of the issue. That was a real ignorant thing to say... All the beekeepers I know stand on issues as they see it, as I and you do. Becasue Tom holds an opinion different than mine, doesn't mean either one of us lacks the understanding of the issue at hand. We both hold different opinions, thats all.,
Ian
-
Allen Dick
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1824
- Joined: February 25th, 2003, 10:09 pm
- Location: Swalwell, Alberta
- Contact:
Well, I'm not talking about you or Tom, and I really think highly of all beekeepers -- even those who disagree with me (and maybe even especially those who disagree with me) -- I tried to make that clear:Allen, I don't agree with you here. Just becasue someone doesn't see face to face with you does not mean their opinions lack knoledge and understanding of the issue. That was a real ignorant thing to say... All the beekeepers I know stand on issues as they see it, as I and you do. Becasue Tom holds an opinion different than mine, doesn't mean either one of us lacks the understanding of the issue at hand. We both hold different opinions, thats all.
As I said previously, even if we all have the same facts to work from, we put different values on different factors in the mix. That's what makes this so fascinating.many beekeepers cannot read or write very well, and many do not understand a great deal of what they read. I mention this in relation to the puzzling misunderstandings and gaps in understanding that seem to be commonplace in industry discussions.
I respect every beekeeper i meet and, besides, many of those who have problems with understanding are very intelligent and much better operators than I am
Thanks for taking the time to wrestle with this subject. We need lots of dialogue. I'm still working hard to improve my writng so that I'm not misunderstood, so sorry if I said it the wrong way. I did not mean it the way it sounded.
allen
-
Tom
Queens would be good. The advantage of packages is faster distribution of the varroa tolerant genes. Note that perspectives here can be quite different if one is worried about having to deal with rVarroa, as against one who already has rVarroa. One's definition of the main issue is different: one of the largest concerns of the risk assessment melts away.Ian wrote:> Tell me how bringing packages up will lead us to any more of an advantage over soely queens?
Becasue Tom holds an opinion different than mine, doesn't mean either one of us lacks the understanding of the issue at hand. We both hold different opinions, thats all.,
Ian
I'm not sure I have a solid opinion on this issue. I go back and forth, as I gain more knowledge and reassess how the facts and risks should be weighted. What I do think is that the best way of doing this is to see arguments presented and challenged on both sides, and the more open border side seemed to need help on its side. And this is what helps us consider the grounds for compromise, and throws up new alternatives.
And to add to the rAFB thoughts in this thread, I believe Allen is correct that rAFB in Canada was first identified at the SFU apiary. It is within bee flight of a couple of packing plants, either of which can have barrels from Alberta as well as barrels from offshore. One hopes the SFU apiary is a place where anomalies in the AFB prevention program would be picked up very quickly, as opposed to a large commercial operation where one is more apt to blame poor application technique.
Additionally, since AFB control at the SFU apiary seems to have relied on extensive use of anti-biotics, this doesn't help us sort between the two main theories about the rise of rAFB either. (Long term use {rAFB} vs different strain {SAFB}.)
Cheers,
Tom
-
Allen Dick
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1824
- Joined: February 25th, 2003, 10:09 pm
- Location: Swalwell, Alberta
- Contact:
Just in case anyone thinks he knows what side of this issue I am on... Here is a post I made to BEE-L today. In case you don't read BEE-L here is the URL: http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/
---
>> Some of the Southern bee breeders would probably ship you a package of drones and by the same token, you could get good quality at the same time.<<
> Sorry I see this as a polution, affection not only the reciver but all
> beekeepers/queen breeders around in the recivers area.
There's an interesting point, and one that is often forgotten. Tough words, but true.
Currently, Canada is looking at importing mainland US bee stock again, either as queens or as packages, or as both, and this is one aspect of the possible effects that is often overlooked. We have gradually achieved the ability to winter successfully, predictably, and reliably because we do not -- cannot --get southern US stock any more.
Imports are again being considered because some beekeepers want US package bees, remembering the good old days when we bought from California, and because many believe that the pests that closed the border can be managed. The consensus, even among those who do not want packages, is that our southern neighbours do have some stock that could be valuable, particularly the Primorsky stock that has been imported to, and refined in, Baton Rouge. It has many desirable characteristics, including very good wintering.
Coumaphos resistant mites may keep the border closed, but before we import, the above point is one we should consider carefully as well. We have experience from our own past, and current reports from the US, that a lot of the southern US package stock is not very reliable when it comes to wintering in northern areas. Consequently, if we are not selective, and some beekeepers import that stock, the imports could adversely affect their neighbours who winter by flooding the area with bad wintering stock to the point where everyone could again become dependant on annual packages!
Consider this: it is not at all to a package producer's benefit to produce bees that winter well in the north. It took us years to achieve good wintering after being cut off from packages. Some may say that we are importing southern stock (Hawaiian stock and Australian stock, and new Zealand stock), and that is true. Nonetheless, the Hawaiian stock is bred for wintering from NWC stock, and with some feedback and selection from wintering zones, and the Aus stock I have had -- for whatever reason -- just happens to be good wintering stock. As for the NZ bees, the nicest thing I can say about any I had (a small sample, granted), other than that I admired their pretty colour, is that they almost all died in their first winter. They are not as popular as the others.
All this is not to say that there is not some good wintering stock in the southern US commercial lines, but we recently saw garphically, thanks to Jose, how variable the commercial stock is in tracheal tolerance.
We can only guess that wintering capability is equally variable, even in the queens from any one producer!
I wonder how much of the loss in the Northeast US this winter was due to southern stock?
allen
http://www.honeybeeworld.com
Retired commercial beekeeper
---
>> Some of the Southern bee breeders would probably ship you a package of drones and by the same token, you could get good quality at the same time.<<
> Sorry I see this as a polution, affection not only the reciver but all
> beekeepers/queen breeders around in the recivers area.
There's an interesting point, and one that is often forgotten. Tough words, but true.
Currently, Canada is looking at importing mainland US bee stock again, either as queens or as packages, or as both, and this is one aspect of the possible effects that is often overlooked. We have gradually achieved the ability to winter successfully, predictably, and reliably because we do not -- cannot --get southern US stock any more.
Imports are again being considered because some beekeepers want US package bees, remembering the good old days when we bought from California, and because many believe that the pests that closed the border can be managed. The consensus, even among those who do not want packages, is that our southern neighbours do have some stock that could be valuable, particularly the Primorsky stock that has been imported to, and refined in, Baton Rouge. It has many desirable characteristics, including very good wintering.
Coumaphos resistant mites may keep the border closed, but before we import, the above point is one we should consider carefully as well. We have experience from our own past, and current reports from the US, that a lot of the southern US package stock is not very reliable when it comes to wintering in northern areas. Consequently, if we are not selective, and some beekeepers import that stock, the imports could adversely affect their neighbours who winter by flooding the area with bad wintering stock to the point where everyone could again become dependant on annual packages!
Consider this: it is not at all to a package producer's benefit to produce bees that winter well in the north. It took us years to achieve good wintering after being cut off from packages. Some may say that we are importing southern stock (Hawaiian stock and Australian stock, and new Zealand stock), and that is true. Nonetheless, the Hawaiian stock is bred for wintering from NWC stock, and with some feedback and selection from wintering zones, and the Aus stock I have had -- for whatever reason -- just happens to be good wintering stock. As for the NZ bees, the nicest thing I can say about any I had (a small sample, granted), other than that I admired their pretty colour, is that they almost all died in their first winter. They are not as popular as the others.
All this is not to say that there is not some good wintering stock in the southern US commercial lines, but we recently saw garphically, thanks to Jose, how variable the commercial stock is in tracheal tolerance.
We can only guess that wintering capability is equally variable, even in the queens from any one producer!
I wonder how much of the loss in the Northeast US this winter was due to southern stock?
allen
http://www.honeybeeworld.com
Retired commercial beekeeper