Murray McGregor wrote:
 
>True resistance is genetically derived, and it is obviously
>nonsense to think that sugar feeding has any impact on this.
 
 
(snip)
 
>>* I'm almost 100% sure that a correct study done on two types of colonies
>>(sugar fed and non-sugar fed) will show that the sugar - fed ones have
lower
>>resistance towards varroa and/or other diseases.
>
>There should be absolutely no difference in this genetically determined
>factor. However, those colonies with more young bees with better fat
>deposits should be less vulnerable to the effects of varroa vectored
>viruses. To me the argument thus slants in favor of the fed bees, but
>has no effect on true resistance.
 
 
 
    Hello dear Murray,
 
    There are many studies, including in humans, which shows that a wrong
diet can affect the genetical structure.
 
    I hope to be able to give you soon clear references but until then let
me give you the general conclusion of only two of them:
 
* pollen supplementation with less than 50% "raw" bee pollen in the mixture
increases the risk of birth defects;
 
* the same birth defects comes when a bee colony is fed excessively with
refined sugar; in this second case, the birth defects comes to the third
generation of bees.
 
    So, my friend, it is already a proven fact that excessive refined sugar
feeding CAN give genetical problems.
 
    Why this genetical disease wasn't so obvious up to now?
 
    Probably because sugar feeding is seldom used in an excessive manner.
 
    However, the problem is out there and you can never verify exactly if a
queen breeder feeds or not  excessively his bee colonies with sugar, in
order to make sooner more nurse bees to nourish the queens.
 
    The most dangerous situation I see here, as a poor un-experienced
"outsider", is when a beekeeper has a bee colony with:
 
    a) excessive sugar feeding +
 
    b) lack of bee bread thus royal jelly;
 
    c) lack of propolis.
 
 
    Kind regards,
 
Stefan.