In my decidedly humble view, all bee husbandry ultimately represents
artificial selection at some level - so when we are discussing Natural
Selection I have in view colonies that are truly unmanaged (or as they now
style them across the pond - 'free living').

 

We can study them in this setting and can learn from them, but when we bring
them under management they are now under selection pressure that the
beekeeper imposes - even if this selection is considered by some as
ill-suited to managed beekeeping.

 

With this framework in place, there is no consideration for human
intervention as we typically understand it in a Natural Selection paradigm.

 

Further, I concur with the general sentiment oft espoused that all
beekeepers should have a good handle on their varroa loads and be prepared
to act upon this information regardless of their approach on the varroa
management continuum - and it is this same information that can be utilized
to bring visibility to emerging resistance factors.

 

As noted in Randy's article, one need not take a firm 'treat' or 'no treat'
approach carte blanche but can (if one wishes) employ a positive artificial
selection approach: 

 

'Kefuss has a practical recommendation-the "Soft Bond" test.  This involves
positive (as opposed to only negative) selection.  In the Soft Bond you
positively select for indicators of mite resistance (and only from your more
desirable colonies).  Only the few that meet both goals are then not treated
to control mites.  Depending upon how your measure for resistance, the Soft
Bond can also incorporate tedious testing (such as for VSH), but you don't
need to sacrifice any colonies.'

 


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