> Would I be correct in saying that if America had to face varroa again
> with the benefit of hindsight that America would not have used
> chemicals so liberally?

 I don't know if you mean 'America' in the sense the US uses the term,
or if you include Canada, Mexico, and the rest of the Americas, or who
in America could decide for all.

America is a huge place, no matter whether you mean it in the smallest
or largest sense, with an amazing variety of climates and beekeeping
practices.   I doubt that 'America' has a single mind on the matter, but
if it did, I suspect that most of the beekeeping part of America's mind
would have wished for a broader spectrum of chemicals, and more study of
all possibilities.  The organic city shopper would likely have opted --
without thinking, even  -- for none at all, regardless of economic cost
to producers or the variety of food offered at low cost to consumers.

In some areas, without two, or even three chemical treatments of some
sort each year, colony loss would have repeatedly wiped out commercial
beekeeping.  In others, a year or two may pass without need for chemical
intervention, although monitoring is certainly prudent in all cases.

In spite of many decades of study, no one really knows all the
mechanisms and factors involved in the varroa/honey bee interraction.
After all, we just (finally) figured out quite recently which varroa was
doing all the damage!  Probably, in the long run, some sort of
equilibrium will develop, but without chemicals, the immediate and
short-term economic loss would have been unaccepable.

Chemicals, used well, work well and reliably, with a minimum of harm to
the bees or threat to humans.  Nonetheless, chemicals in the wrong hands
are dangerous.  There is always a cost/benefit calculation to be made,
as well as an analysis of probable effectiveness and cost.

Chemicals range too, in cost and toxicity, from benign and harmless
substances -- like powdered sugar, and mineral oil -- to substances that
have effects on bees and mammals that are very disturbing to
contemplate.  As we lose effectiveness in a more benign chemical like
fluvalinate, and move towards more toxic and cumulative compounds, like
cumaphos, the use of chemicals looks less attractive.

The best use of chemicals is to buy time for researchers and beekeepers
to develop methods and stock for control and to gain understanding of
the problem.  In the fullness of time, we all hope that chemical stopgap
measures will become less and less necessary to the point where
management, stock selection and other factors may reduce chemical use to
levels near zero.

We also hope that where chemicals are required, that methods and
substances can be developed which have the minimum possible impact --
ideally zero -- on the bees, the beekeeper, the environment, and the
consumer.

allen
http://www.honeybeeworld.com

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::