Dee Lusby  wrote:

>Well, when you consider early on we were told to change
>nothing but the combs to prove theory for control of mites
>and diseases, and we did, and hence have been called
>africanized due to sizing for the most part, what is
>africanized? 

Nobody is using the *size* of the bees or their combs to determine
Africanization. The wing venation is the first criterion and a follow-up DNA
test is required to confirm. Where African bees predominate, such as
Arizona, or Texas, the chance of having bees free of Africanization is slim. 

When you say you changed nothing but the combs, you are in error. By not
treating for mites, you have allowed susceptible bees to die out and natural
selection produces a mite resistant bee (or a non-virulent mite) and this
leads to hives that can survive.

This is a good plan, of course -- let the mites and bees sort it out. This
is what Mike Allsop observed in Africa. Several years after the influx of
mites, the bees bounced back. He suggests that letting nature take its
course is the key. (I don't know if this would work with European bees).

They had small cells all along, and that did not prevent varroa mites from
building up huge populations. No, the small cell isn't what did it, it was
survivor stock that repopulated the forests and in Africa they use feral
swarms to restock their hives.

So far as I know, this is also done in Arizona, Florida, etc. where there
are a lot of feral hives. These are no doubt mite resistant, and Africanized
too. Maybe this points to us all using Africanized bees in the future...
They are illegal in NY State. 

pb

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************