From owner-drosophila@net.bio.net Thu Oct 06 23:00:00 1994 Newsgroups: bionet.drosophila Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!leeds.ac.uk!news From: pab6awd@leeds.ac.uk (A.J. DAVIS) Subject: Re: Mite Infestation Message-ID: Sender: news@leeds.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: agric_pc34.leeds.ac.uk Organization: University of Leeds Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 17:37:01 +0100 (BST) References: <199410042340.QAA25986@net.bio.net> X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] Lines: 33 In article <199410042340.QAA25986@net.bio.net> kaufman@SUNFLOWER.BIO.INDIANA.EDU (T. Kaufman) writes: >Andrew Davis posted this note on the board: >> Most stock centers are infected and in any cases it's always best to assume >>that they are. > I must take strong exception to this blanket statement. {remainder snipped} Sorry that you take strong exception - but i've found experience to be a hard teacher. However, I do think you should take careful note of what i said - it *isn't* a blanket statement - i said *most* centers. The two you mention may well be clean (i can't say since we've never used them) but you cannot speak for all the other centers or sources of stocks and therefore my statement remains justifiable. The best strategy to keep clear of mites is to assume that all incoming stocks are infected. You and Mark Garfinkel understand this strategy since you both endorse my recommendation, one that is worth repeating, that rigorous quarentine of *all* stocks *wherever* they come from, is the safest strategy. In fact you both recommend doing exactly what you criticise me for - i.e. assume all sources of stocks are infected. I've lost very many staff-years because of long term experiments becoming contaminated with mites from supposedly 'clean' sources so i'm very insistent on this strategy. successful mite eradication everyone, Andrew .