It must be frustrating for the queen suppliers. And yet its generally 
conceded that we have real problems with queens - higher supercedure 
rates, and often no supercedure - just queenlessness. And so many old 
beekeepers say "It didn't used to be like this..."

But there has to be responsibility taken for the dosing with 
miticides to make queens appear healthy and mite-free. Miticides are 
complicit with queen issues including fertility.

In my experience, asking about a Queen's exposure to miticides gets 
me the same answer as when I ask a foundation supplier if they've 
tested to miticide residue in the recycled wax. I get a lot of ummms 
and ers and a quick change of subject.

I will grant you that some of these practices were done out of 
desperation, and a misguided effort to aid in making a superior 
product. But now we know... or we think we know... a great deal more.

At 12:00 AM 12/12/2014, you wrote:
>This is a completely unfounded slam on queen breeders. How would one 
>even go about selecting for short lived queens? Further, there is no 
>credible evidence that queen longevity is related to worker 
>longevity in any way. Beyond that, longevity in workers is 
>epigenetically regulated to produce short- and long-lived worker 
>castes. It is generally understood that queens are superseded rather 
>than "die without an heir". Queen supersedure is obviously a 
>separate phenomenon from longevity.

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