Dee:
All I can say is that to get creditable proof, research must
knowingly want to know...
verification. Does research really want to know? That's what I'd like to know?

Bob:
I doubt any researcher on the list will respond


Friends,
I make my living doing honey bee research. I have no particular bias,
except against things that cost a lot of money and do not work. I
have spent thousands of hours working on the varroa problem. I
recently posted a study done by a South African bee researcher which
highlights the fact that varroa reproduce just as well in smaller
cells with smaller bees. Just as well. (No one responded to the post.)

As a beekeeper, I want to be able to get rid of varroa without
chemicals, just as much as anybody else. When I got into bees in
1974, it was because of the interest I had in a career that kept me
so close to nature all the time and seemed to be outside the normal
agricultural practices which rely so heavily on chemicals. So it
saddened me immensely to see beekeeping become just like the rest of
them, dependent on chems.

I have no blind spot in regard to a particular treatment. Two things
which seem to have very little going for them are small cells and
bottom screens. Two things which seem to have great potential are
drone brood trapping and non-chemical fumigants. I don't know about
mineral oil. The best bet, in my opinion, is in breeding a bee with
better grooming habits, or some other anti-varroa traits.

The research I am doing is focusing on this last approach. You can't
do everything and you can't spend millions on things that have
*apparently* little potential. Researchers are a favorite whipping
boy around here. I have stayed in the discussion because I am at
heart a beekeeper. It is very easy to say to people that disagree:
you just don't want to know. In my case, however, that would be a
mis-characterization.


--

Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>