Aaron said:

> I believe a super bee is the Holy Grail in beekeeping.

And just like the Holy Grail, it may never be found, even
if it does exist.  A long shot taken from atop a very shaky
tower of complete speculation.

In the highly unlikely event a "Grail" were found, the Grail
would not hold water.  Not for long, anyway.

Anything claimed to be a "Super Bee" would be brought to its
tiny little knees by the next "Kyptonite" disease or pest that is
delivered to your doorstep courtesy of the World Trade Organization.
Perhaps the Davos, Switzerland round (scheduled to end 01/28/03)
will result in some tighter WTO "biosecurity protocols", which would
be of more long-term practical help to beekeeping worldwide than any
effort to try and play catch-up after the exotic pests and diseases invade.

There is no single "fix" possible for so many different problems,
so beekeepers need to watch Jackie Chan movies, and learn from
him how to use "whatever is lying around" to defend against "whatever
comes along".  Beekeepers must also realize that Jackie Chan
takes a beating in every movie, proving that no defense is perfect.

> Sticking with the T-Mite discussion the past week or so,
> some say it's a definite 10, problem's licked.  Others have
> said it's an 8 in the south but a 3 up north.  Who's correct?

All are.  What we are seeing here is nothing but the end result
of bee producers delivering "what the market wants", which is
cheap queens and packages.  As the chart mentioned by Allen
in a prior post showed, some bee producers sell queens and
packages that can be reasonably expected to be free of diseases
and pests (perhaps even somewhat resistant), and others will
include pests and/or diseases (at no extra charge!) in your packages.
Forget asking where people are - ask where they get their stock.

If beekeepers were willing to pay a little extra for "super bees", Sue
Colby and her husband would still be in the queen and package business.
They aren't.  We have only ourselves to blame.

> One of my goals at EAS last summer was to schedule as many honey
> bee anatomy labs as possible.  I wonder how many beekeepers went
> home and looked at the tracheas in their own back yard.

Well, we've yet to have a single question about "microscopes" since then,
and I can't imagine that everyone who took the courses was both able to find
a microscope at a price beekeepers would be willing to pay, and was able
to use it with complete success.  Perhaps they were scared off by the
elegance of the very nice (stereo!) microscopes used at EAS.  (Heck, I use
a CHILD's microscope for bee post-mortems.  I think even the lenses are plastic.)

Anyway, what is so difficult about tossing a menthol pack on one's hives
"just in case" when pulling the last supers? Is it too expensive for some
people?  Or are people afraid of creating "menthol-resistant tracheal mites"?  :)

I consider menthol to be one of the few medications I can use that has
no "downside".  The other is Fumagillin.  Do I treat even hives that test
"clean" with both of these?  Sure I do.  Cheap insurance.

Keith Malone said:

> So we have Wolf control so we can have more Moose to hunt.
> Man becomes a part of nature.

Gee, isn't "Wildlife Management" the ultimate oxymoron?

Peter Borst said:

> The future lies in better bees, not letting nature take her course.

Nature is going to "take her course" no matter what we try.  This is
a good thing, since a monoculture of identical hybrid "super bees"
would be just as much an Achilles' heel as monocultures of identical
hybrids have proven to be in other segments of agriculture.

Better bees - bah!
Better beekeepers - hah!

What we will always have is an essentially random mix of bees,
beekeeping practices, pests, diseases, and vectors that can
spread problems to any apiary.

Therefore, the price of honey is eternal vigilance, nothing less.

        jim