quote:
 There was no need nor reason to breed European bees to tolerate Varroa
 since there was no Varroa. They are not a more susceptible bee because
 of breeding, since the feral populations in every country where Varroa
 has been introduced has collapsed.

response:
The point of the article was to establish the distinction between bees that
can live with varroa and those that succumb. The authors claim (and I
neither agree nor disagree) that European bees succumb due (perhaps) to
being overly domesticated and African bees do not, being essentially a
wilder sub-species -- not domesticated at all.

The authors call the US and Euro bees domesticated and the African bees
feral. I agree with this: I don't believe the so-called feral bees in the
neighborhood of commercial beekeepers are feral at all, merely escaped. The
real feral bees are the Africans; they are much more vigourous and also,
more hostile.

It matters little really whether European bees are in fact domesticated or
if it's that they were tractable which led to beekeeping in the first
place. The history of keeping bees in Europe is very old, unlike Africa.
Bees and people seem to have always gotten along in Europe and most of
Asia.

But the main point is this: these Africans seem to be much more vigorous.
So if you are looking ONLY for a healthy, vigorous bee, they might be the
ticket. If you are looking for a manageable one, you might have to accept
that such a bee needs to be helped (read: miticides). This is not different
from what we face as people. We need vaccinations, antibiotics, etc. to
survive. No one I know would suggest that the people who cannot fend for
themselves without these aids should be left to die out.

The thing we want, the thing we need, is a bee that has the ability to take
care of itself as well as the Africans appear to do. Personally, I wouldn't
care to have a bee that is vicious as well, but some people have learned to
live with them.

PB