We could simply link the post and see which one of us was talking through his .......Originally Posted by drumgerry
We could simply link the post and see which one of us was talking through his .......
And there you go again SDM. You're maybe missing the point that we don't really put up with people who go around insulting people willy nilly. Maybe you'd be better off on beekeepingforum where stuff like that is the norm.
I blame my myopia on Charlie's angels
Sent from my LIFETAB_S1034X using Tapatalk
Mysophobia ... you're right ... I'm living a lie. I'm also following greengumbo's advice and reading the Ladybird book of "Anthropogenic factors and viral pandemics". Interesting stuff.
Calluna4u is correct, you can't go banning everything just because there might be something out there. However, although the local trade comments - scale and potential for spreading nasties (the Ladybird book keeps the words simple which is a great help for me) - are also broadly correct, the evidence is overwhelming in human and animal disease that long distance transport has contributed to many if not most of the global problems we now face. Large scale rapid transport breaches natural geographic barriers, putting susceptibles into contact with the infected and ensuring the widespread distribution of new and emerging pathogens. This is undeniable ... at least by anyone who has read the Ladybird book of "Anthropogenic factors and viral pandemics".
Despite the best advice from the Ladybird book I still can't name the viruses I'm worried about ... which is sort of the point. If I could name them I might know what to do about them, or know a man who can, and it would certainly be possible to test for them. Calluna4u makes the point that there are other viral diseases currently making an impact. We don't know where these came from and we don't know how significant they are going to be. The point is you don't know what's coming next, but it is certainly coming. We have all the parts in place ... high and increasing demand, relatively inexpensive, relatively poorly regulated, certainly easy to bypass ... but that's not all. This 'supply' is meeting a demand from that in some cases are unlikely to identify new diseases, or distinguish them from old ones, and may well not be able to control or contain their stock.
Here's one example of what happens when you go looking for the unknown once some technology comes along that allows you search for viral sequences in an unbiased manner.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0057459
G.
Fair enough...but is it important?
fwiw... a beekeeper I know is in the process of purchasing 200 Spanish nuclei. Note.....nuclei....not packages.
ps...it will be fully legal, and its not in Scotland.
Last edited by Calluna4u; 09-02-2016 at 12:18 AM.
Shall I post the " aggressive" message now? Or would you prefer to simply stop lying ?
Try keeping your posts to the thread subject, instead of about the posters( and I'll take my own advice from here on and simplg ignore you).
Surely the most relevant thing there is about TuRSV..
How exactly do you plan to defend your bees against every potential global vector of these( as yet) unknown viruses?
Nobody's denying the contents of the report that started this, but what can be done about it ?
When the next pandemic hits us it will for sure be flown around the world to an airport near you. Should we shut all the airports today ? You simply can't make the world a smaller place anymore. We take sensible precautions against the known and let the fatsharks worry about the unknown.
To be fair, your bees best chance of surviving the next killer will be that old favourite, genetic diversity.
Last edited by SDM; 09-02-2016 at 07:12 AM.
Post what you like but it will, as it should be, be deleted as meaningless to others on this forum. Your singular lack of awareness of the aggressive tone you take in what you type is there for all to see. To say nothing of the insults.
Gavin - if you're reading this please delete all of my posts in this thread. They contribute nothing to the topic and I'm sorry I got involved. And please be assured any thread with the name SDM attached to it will remain free of my contributions from now on
Of course not, but we should try and mitigate the risks ...
Perhaps we should just add an import levy to every imported colony to fund honey bee pathogen research*. Part of this could also go to BDI or the equivalent to compensate beekeepers who might lose colonies in the future. The amount has to be meaningful ... and be designed to achieve two things, it should provide proper funding for research and a realistic buffer for the insurers. How about €250 per nuc or equivalent, and half that for queens? By 'we' I mean Europe. I can't remember the numbers but reckon that would raise ~€10M/annum ... but there would be an inevitable reduction in imports (perhaps 90%).
A benefit would be that it would both be a disincentive (but not stop altogether, so allowing the all important genetic diversity, bringing in of breeder queens etc) to large-scale imports and a boost to queen rearing activities in the UK. Locally reared queens - including the initiative by C4U - would inevitably become more valuable, individuals and BKA's would be incentivised to run properly organised queen rearing/nuc producing activities, commercials would benefit by generating significant revenue from activities other than honey production. The quality of UK beekeeping should increase.
Perhaps EU law doesn't allow this?
But then, we might not be in the EU that much longer ... in which case all bets are off.
* and perhaps because of spillover between honey bees and other pollinators, it should both fund pollinators more generally and be levied on imported bumblebees
PS I'd like to thank GG for the information on other Ladybird books I should consider reading ... I particularly liked this one:
c334cf4014e84eed85fd72ee564d518c.jpg
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks