Peter Borst's observation:
> After all, Apis mellifera probably would never have gotten
> thoroughly infested by varroa were it not for 1) the
> importation of Apis m. into Apis cerana territory....

For a long time that is how beekeepers were told that Varroa j. "jumped"
from their original target (Apis c.) to the European honeybee (Apis m.).
Now it's discovered that it's not Varroa j. causing all our problems, it's
Varroa d.!  So I'm wondering where in this tale did Varroa d. actually come
on board?  Is it a similar story (Varroa d. got picked up by migratory
beekeepers in their journeys) or was there some sort of mutation of Varroa
j. that begat Varroa d., or what?  My recollection is that Varroa d. had
roots in Korea vs. SE Asia, but I'm admittedly vague on this.  Was the
origin of the species ever updated to reflect the discovery of Varroa d. or
was that piece of the lie just glossed over.  Does anyone really know?

> I suggest beekeepers must give their full support to efforts
> world-wide to develop mite-resistant bees. Buy these queens
> and use them! Do not raise queens from "local" bees or simply
> let the bees requeen themselves. (My $.02)
Agree and disagree.  I believe that Harbo's intent is to get the SMR trait
out there by route of commercial breeders.  However, I disagree with "do not
raise queens from 'local' bees".  Harbo's strategy is to get the SMR trait
widely distributed via breeders and then incorporate this trait into local
populations.  The weak link in the strategy will be beekeepers who buy SMR
queens and then haphazardly pursue laisse faire beekeeping, letting the
purchased SMR queens supercede or swarm, without assessing the degree to
which they maintain or lose the SMR traits in subsequent generations.  If
the progeny queens retain SMR traits they should be nurtured in beekeepers'
yards.  If the SMR traits are lost in subsequent generations, that line
should be culled.  I fear it will be the assessment piece (or lack thereof)
of queens in beekeeper's yards that will hurt a goal Varroa d. victory
through better breeding.

And I am not altogether sure that a loss of SMR traits will be confined to
the beekeeper level.  My understanding is that Baton Rouge is ready to call
the experiment complete.  They've shown SMR traits exist and are heritable
across generations.  They have released highly inbred queens to commercial
breeders.  I hearsay (not to be construed as fact) Baton Rouge feels their
part is complete and intend to move on.  So a cautious consumer may want to
ask of their breeder what they (the breeders) are doing to assess the degree
to which SMR traits are being maintained in their own apiary.  Are the SMR
queens sold closely related to the queens obtained from Baton Rouge or are
they 6 or 7 or 15 generations removed?  If they're many generations removed,
have any assessments been done to evaluate SMR traits or is the breeder
merely selling SMR hype based on the lineage of a
great-great-great-...-great grandmother?  And don't forget the drones!  Is
your breeder open mating, closed population mating or II?  All these
variables will play in a beekeeper's results.

So, even if breeding is the "Silver Bullet", remember that silver tarnishes!
The only way to keep silver shiny is to polish.  The only way to keep the
"Silver Bullet" of breeding better bees is to continually assess subsequent
generations or to continually buy queens from a breeder who is doing the
assessment.

Aaron Morris - thinking good queens should command good dollars!