>Researchers have been working on varroa resistant bees for many decades.

Indeed, and without much progress it seems.

Could this be the basis for why some are quick to dimiss the work of those studying resistant populations?  i.e. is it the default position that since the experts have been unable to succeed after all this time that it's just not possible?

>The mite density numbers reported from "resistant" colonies presumably produced by natural selection are not impressive. 
>Those limping along are called naturally resistant.

If anyone has references for the studies reporting resistant bee populations have high mite density and/or are found in such a weakened state please share them. 

>I thought it curious that M. Oddie mentioned the very low density of colonies in Norway vs the very high density of colonies in commercial beekeeping but never took it further, e.g. maybe the high density is the main problem. 

There is no way around that opportunity for horizontal transmission of mites and their associated viruses increases with very high density of colonies.   And there is no way around having high density when it comes to large scale beekeeping operations.

It should come as no surprise that colonies faring well in less dense environments don't do so well when transplanted into more dense ones.  That this proves resistance does not exist is not the only possible interpretation.

kudos to randy for coming up with a scheme by which he is arriving at mite resistance while maintaining commercial viability and workability.

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