Allen said:

> I think that perhaps the difference in expectations here is that most
> of us just look for spores, not the active amoebae.

Fair enough, but looking for the protozoa itself allows one to
detect early cases, and "mild" cases.  Clearly one can find
protozoa where one might not find spores.

> to get quantatative estimates, a haemocytometer is used by some of us.

Wow, beekeepers are trying to COUNT the darned things?
I'm impressed.  I would have never thought to try.

> This discussion makes me think it would be interesting to know the
> actual corelation between the number of spores and the amount of
> active disease.

I don't have any hard numbers, as I have better things to do than
to count microscopic spores and creatures, but it should be fairly
easy to conclude that there would be more creatures than spores
in any one sample.  I'll leave it to someone else to do the counting,
as I have a "life".

> queens from the Ontario bee project breeders...
> ... have a high tracheal tolerance as well as superior
> hygienuic qualities...  Any of these queens can be
> readily obtained... by US beekeepers

If larger beekeepers in Alberta have such problems getting
queens of sufficient quality in sufficient quantity that some
are reduced to smuggling queens from the US, why would there
be enough queens in Ontario to offer some to US beekeepers?

Ontario may be far from Alberta, but it is certainly closer
than New Zealand and Australia.  Is it a timing thing, or
is it a Provincial thing?

No comment on the irony inherent in US beekeepers buying queens
from some of the folks sure to be among the most vocal opposition
to any attempt to get Canada to comply with existing international
treaties in regard to trade in things like queens.  :)

                jim

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