Paul van Westendorp  wrote.
>    HBTM-resistant beestock may therefore be only one component of an entire
>    mite control strategy.  Similarly, chemical controls occupy only one
>    part of the overall mite control effort.  I don't think most beekeepers
>    are inclined to favor chemical controls over mite-resistant beestock,
>    but the concerns about residues, efficacy, applicators safety, product
>    registration and all other factors associated with the use of chemicals,
>    make this inevitably a more frequently discussed subject matter.
 
No problem with these observations! Apart from one or two enlightened
individuals all we are asked for are queens, there is little or no mention
of T-mite resistance, and that was the jist of my first post.
         I would have thought with the announcement of T-mite resistant
stock that      beekeepers would be clamouring for them. But quite the reverse.
        It still makes sense both econonmically and physically, re-queen
with resistant stock, and save on the time effort and cost of chemical
treatments. In the UK where T-mite first came from, there is no treatment
necessary or available for T-mites!  Is this not the aim of bee keepers in
North America?
 
    ****************************************************
   * David Eyre          9 Progress Drive, Unit 2,  *
   * The Beeworks,    Orillia, Ontario, L3V 6H1. *
   * [log in to unmask]      705-326-7171 *
   * http://www.muskoka.net/~beeworks           *
   *  Agents for: E H Thorne &  B J Sherriff UK. *
   ****************************************************