>> The first step, however, is to find tolerant bees, learn what genes,
>> if any, are associated with observed tolerance, then find out if
>> they exist in the desirable strains of bees we currently use.
>
> Or learn more about the mite. I know you did not say so, and I guess
> you would agree, that it is not an either/or situation.

Yes. I suppose I should have changed the subject line, since I was replying
in the context of Robin's comment, "IMHO the search for bees that have
mutated to suppress varroa without external help is interesting but unlikely
to help the ordinary beekeeper for a very long time.", and not the original
discussion following Zach's request for samples of resistant varroa.

> One of the best ways with dealing with pests is to find their weakness
> and exploit it. That is done all the time in medicine. And, in medicine,
>  genetic identification is also going on. I wonder why we continually
> try to change the bee and not the mite.

True, and there is no way of knowing up front which approach will pay off
with the best solution(s).

Studying the mite for weaknesses has potential.  Obviously a magic bullet
against the mites, one which does not in any way affect the bees, or humans,
or the environment, etc. would be the ideal, but so far, chasing down
that road has led to chemicals and mechanical methods that are expensive,
toxic, invasive, weather dependant, etc.

Moreover, as we have seen, the mite can overcome some chemicals, given time,
and using chemicals can lead to marketing and other problems. We all hope to
find varroa's Achilles heel, but many intelligent and creative people,
including mite experts, have been working on this problem for decades now,
without finding it.

Finding bees that are tolerant is a great idea, except, as Robin has pointed
out, such bees, when found, may not be well adapted to all purposes and
climates.  This seems to be a problem with the Russian stock, so far, at
least, and it remains to be seen how far selection can proceed within that
population, without going outside it.

Changing bees by identifying and working with susceptibility or tolerance
genes has promise, but may or may not work, depending on what else is lost
in the selection, and depending on how easy it is to fix the tolerance
traits.  If susceptibility tends to come back quickly in offspring, or if
tolerance is uneven across selected populations, regular requeening with
commercially produced queens could be necessary to ensure continuing
tolerance.  This introduces another wrinkle.  Queen suppliers might like
this, but beekeepers might find such dependence on suppliers uncomfortable.

Are we making progress on any front?  So far, we have not found anything
that lets us turn our backs on varroa for more than a short while.  Will we
ever find a solution that allows us to forget about varroa?  I wonder, and I
wonder whether it will come from altering bees, or from finding varroa's
Achilles heel.

allen
A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::