> 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