On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:18:40 -0400, J. Waggle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>However I do have some difficulty with such tremendous weight being placed
>on the non-virulent mite theory

Well, the fact that the theory was proposed by Tom Seeley may account for
why many of us sit up and listen. Tom has studied honey bees most of his
life, and as a scientist, he has proceeded with a minimum of bias. That is
to say, he has no particular agenda to promote other than the goal of
science, which is: to understand. 

When he proposed that bees in semi-isolated parts of New York could possess
traits that made them resistant to mites, I was skeptical. I don't believe
these bees have the degree of isolation nor enough time to develop into a
population that has any traits that make them significantly different from
the bees down the road a mile or two. Believe me, there are commercial
apiaries near the Arnot Forest; I know where they are.

But again, when he embarked on the study, I was ALL EARS. So, I was
listening when he said that when these bees were brought into Ithaca and
placed alongside other hives, whatever resistance they were showing in the
woods evaporated. It doesn't take a geneticist to realize that the effect
may be due to some other factor besides genetic resistance. 

This is not to say that bees couldn't have heritable traits that could help
them resist varroa or other diseases. This has already been shown possible.
The problem is getting and maintaining resistant lines. The difficulty in
maintaining them is obvious: once a hives self-requeens, the traits are
already becoming diluted. 

I think that getting resistance is a bit more difficult than rummaging the
woods for wild bees. The US government spent millions of dollars going to
Siberia to find bees that had the degree of isolation and sufficient time to
have developed some resistance to varroa. This just gives us an idea of what
is really needed to get and keep resistant bees.

However, recent work by Seeley and his associates have raised an entirely
new angle: the possibility that genetically diverse sisters in the colony
produce a more vigorous colony. Perhaps line selection has caused more
problems than it has cured. Certainly there is ample evidence that excessive
selection in livestock can be harmful to their health and vigor.

Perhaps the new model of the honey bee colony will attempt to have queens
and drones reared from as many different lines as possible, instead of the
narrowing which normal occurs by using a few selected breeders. If the
desire effect is to have more vigorous bees, there appears to be several
possible approaches. 

Personally, I believe that collecting feral swarms is the least promising.
After all, you can get the same results by simply making splits and letting
them requeen themselves. I talked to a commercial beekeeper recently who
does exactly this. Very quickly you will have a hodge-podge of "local" bees,
and without the risk bringing in diseases like AFB. Wild bees are definitely
a vector of AFB. Further, in many parts of the country the ferals are all
presumed African and subject to eradication. 

The real problem with wild bees of any kind -- not just honey bees -- is
that any new pathogen can very quickly wipe them out. That is why I would
put my money behind managed bees to supply the pollination this country
requires. I think we have to move forward to get healthier bees, not spin
our wheels trying to get back to something that may in fact be a mirage. 

pb

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************