> A second factor is that any queen producer who depends upon spring
> pollination contracts for their income will not be able to economically
> sustain the kind of winter varroa losses necessary for selection for
> resistant stocks.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but it seems to me that the characteristics are
there for the taking from a number of sources and could be bred into the
suppliers' stocks with little effort.
Are winter losses necessary to evaluate varroa tolerance? I think not. Are
there not surrogate tests that allow for tracking anti-varroa performance
without sacrificing the hive?
As you know, I live in Canada, so maybe people wonder why I am concerned
about US bee supplies. We buy a lot of queens from the US (mainland and
Hawaii) and offshore. We do have some Canadian queen projects, but the
season works against beekeepers here and most would have to change
management considerably to take advantage of the supplies when they are
available.
The Southern US is our traditional and natural supplier, plus the US is
leading IMO in coming up with varroa tolerant bees simply due to climate and
number of queen producers. As a result, we have a big interest in what is
happening in the US. We'd like to get the characteristic mainstream so we
can get bees that need much less worry and expense and which, as a result of
less treatment, sustain less damage from chemicals. It isn't just the
varroa that harm our bees. Chemicals, in themselves -- contrary to what
many seem to think -- can and do considerably reduce production and bee
health.
Seems that there are some, mostly smaller, US suppliers of varroa-combating
stock that would ship to Canada if the border paperwork were a little less
daunting and costly to manage, and the larger suppliers are busy enough that
they don't seem to give the issue enough weight (apologies to any who are
actively improving stock).
A few years back, I wrote that every beekeeper should keep asking his or her
queen suppliers what they are doing for tracheal mite resistance and what
they are doing for hygienic behaviour, and not let up. I think we need to
start and keep asking about this feature, too. Without pressure, as Randy
indicated,, there is not inclination for many to change.
Personally, I think queens with varroa resistance and equivalence to other
commercial queens in every other aspect have to be worth a minimum of $5
more than run of the mill queens. Simply reducing the number and amounts of
treatment, along with reduced loss and improved bee health would more than
pay back a few extra bucks.
I understand that Marla is working with the West Coast queen producers to
improve stock. I hope this is a priority in that project. I would imagine
it must be.
I look forward to someday going to a bee meeting and not having to listen to
endless talks about disease and pest treatments. The sooner we universally
grasp the solution that are out there now, and consider propagating
susceptible strains to be the public nuisance it is, the sooner that day
will come.
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|