> A generalised summary of how things stand in the apicultural world!
A good suggestion and something that some contributors DO share.  A problem
can be that what is reported is not necessarily what was presented!  Of
course this is true of any reporting on any topic in any medium.  Ever see
"Reefer Madness"?  Or, how many weapons of mass destruction have Iraq?

> It would be great if the informed individuals were able to say where
> they were on the scale between say 1) Start of problem ...  to  ...
> 10) Problem cracked (for the moment).
This would be a tough assignment.  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?  I could be
wishy washy and say across the board it's a definite 5!  Truth is, no one
knows and the only real number that is meaningful is the number in YOUR bee
yard.  One of my goals at EAS last summer was to schedule as many honey bee
anatomy labs as possible.  Except for the early morning sessions, every time
slot in the schedule offered an opportunity to take anatomy lab with a
declared goal of learning how to competently dissect a honey bee to diagnose
the degree of T-mite infestation.  Many beekeepers took the labs; the labs
were well received and positively reviewed.  I wonder how many beekeepers
went home and looked at the tracheas in their own back yard.

> Am I not correct in thinking that what is going to be needed by many is
> a super bee?
I believe a super bee is the Holy Grail in beekeeping.  SMR, Russians and
many others, Roger Morse produced AFB resistant bees, Marla Spivak's
hygienic line, all of these bees certainly can be considered in the running
for Super Bee!  The problem is, and Marla was clear at Niagara Falls when
she made the point that what is being isolated and provided by very talented
breeders and researchers, is not necessarily what is being sold by the queen
producers.

I am not sure who is to blame here.  Certainly the queen producers should be
delivering what they claim.  This is what Allen has been saying when he
talks about an independent queen evaluation service.  I see the
responsibility laying perhaps no so much with the queen producers as I do
with the queen consumers.  Admittedly, the producers are touting the Super
Bee buzz word du jour.  SMR Queens!  Hygienic Queens!  Russians!  Get them
here!  But at the same time, they're selling these highly touted queens as
OPEN MATED!  Caveat emptor!

And therein lays a good part of the problem.  Most beekeepers are trusting
that the producers' advertisements are flawless.  They believe they've
bought the Super Bee solution and need not worry about the problem anymore.
Hey, I requeened all my hives with open mated Russian SMR Hygienic queens
from Timbuktu, so I never have to examine my bees for V-Mites, T-Mites, AFB,
EFB or cholera!  Then they sing the blues in a season or two when their
Super Bee colonies crash.  Forget that the colonies swarmed once or twice,
forget that the beekeeper never assessed how their original open mated super
bee queen actually performed when she was first installed, forget that the
queens were never marked in the first place so the beekeeper really has no
idea if the queen they installed in May is the queen that is laying in
August, the heck with all that, blame the queen producer!  Lousy sumbitch!
Try a different producer next time.  There's enough of them out there to
easily fill up a career.

I think what's really needed are super beeKEEPERS!  I do not disagree that
producers should be delivering what they are advertising.  I claim they ARE
delivering what they are advertising.  Unless one pays for an II queen,
producers are (should be) delivering open mated daughters of quality breeder
queens.  OPEN MATED is a crap shoot.  Hopefully reputable producers are
running their operations so the mating area is sufficiently saturated with
drones that are every bit as good in lineage as are the breeder queens.  Is
your breeder?  Super beeKEEPERS will ask their producers.

But even then, I feel that at least some of the responsibility of evaluating
ones' queens belongs to the consumer.  First, ALWAYS have your queens
marked, it's the only way one can know the queen they bought is the queen
that reigns.  Second, evaluate that queen by assessing her performance.  Is
the open mated hygienic queen actually producing hygienic workers?  How will
one know if one doesn't assess performance?  Is your SMR queen producing a
colony that suppresses mite reproduction?  Are the Russians wearing those
furry hats and speaking with an accent?  Assess what you've bought!  And if
performance is not up to par, get back with your producer; lodge a complaint
and demand satisfaction.

If queen consumers were demanding replacement on poorly performing queens,
producers would be a lot more contentious about the product they sell!
Advertised claims would either be toned down or quality will pick up.  And
if/when the quality picks up, forget about queens at 8 dollars a pop!  Allen
has suggested an independent evaluator.  I don't see where the incentive
(CASH) is for the independent evaluator.  Perhaps if there were a $1 per
queen fee that goes to the independent evaluator the idea would float.
Hmmm, $1 per queen sounds a lot less palatable than a penny a pound, I guess
not.  I suggest that the consumer should be the evaluator, and demand that
quality be delivered.  Problem with that is it's a LOT OF WORK!  It's easier
to buy queens, believe a super has arrived and grouse when it ain't so.  And
the large commercial guys could never make that kind of investment and stay
in business.

> So, to put it bluntly: Who is winning the race?
> - the "beasties" or the researchers trying to
> develop what we require.

Researchers are making great progress, it can't be denied.  They're
delivering great stuff to breeders.  Breeders are probably delivering great
stuff to producers.  Producers may or may not be selling great stuff to
consumers.  And some, perhaps many, consumers are complacent or incompetent
or just plain too lazy to assure that what they have is what they bought.
And this leaves out of the picture totally those beekeepers that make no
effort whatsoever to even care about their queens.

So who's winning?  I'd place my bet on Beastie Bug to win, place and show in
the fourth!

Aaron Morris - thinking I'm sounding an awful lot like George!