> So given the feasibility of keeping hives free from varroa in the area, is it worthwhile? 

A fews back I wrote a series of articles in the American Bee Journal called "Keeping Bees without Chemicals". It is a recurrent theme and by all means a worthy goal. Few would doubt that we would be better off if we could keep our bees alive without resorting to various chemical controls. 

But the key discovery I made (not just me, others as well) was that controlling varroa (and other pathogens, no doubt) was vastly more difficult in areas where there are a lot of beekeepers, especially where there are migratory beekeepers. Now lest anyone get the wrong idea, I am not for restricting the movement of bees.

But I think that everyone who keeps bees in an isolated area has a far better shot at having low mite levels without having to resort to constant control measures. I am not certain why this is the case, and I am basing this entirely upon anecdotal evidence I have managed to collect over the years. 

Worthwhile? Yes, for many reasons. One, mite control is expensive. Two, chemical free beekeeping is more satisfying and more fun. Three, if you succeed you will have a very interesting story to tell.

PLB

             ***********************************************
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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm