> Two questions in response to my good friend Bill Miller's
> suggestion to NOT treat feral swarms for varroa.
 
> A final comment.  There is lots of discussion on selective
> breeding of queens to come up with a resistant strain of bees.
> I am sure there must be considerable variation in the genetics
> of the mites - ie some less and some more virulent.  Is this
> an area that is receiving any attention?  Could a more
> innocuous mite be produced that our bees could better
> tolerate?  Its not obvious how this would work, given
> the life style of the mite, but it may be an aspect that
> could help.
 
This is a comment that agrees totally with my thoughts as previously
posted regarding selection of bees and mites, and also about not
treating for varroa when indicated.
 
One very huge problem in developing a more benign mite is the fact
that - in order to even remain beekeepers - we must treat varroa
mite infestations with chemicals that harden the mites by killing
any weak ones, and leaving only the strongest.  (The only other
practical and responsible alternative in most areas of North America
is to gas the bees each year and buy packages from someone who does
treat - or is outside the mite areas).  (Some Europeans use mechanical
methods that do not exert such selection pressure).
 
This selection for tough mites is one reason why anyone who leaves
strips in longer than necessary is unwittingly accelerating the
selection for chemical resitant mites.
 
And to consider the first part last...
 
> 1.  How do know the swarm is a feral one and not from a kept colony?
> 2.  How do you prevent any varroa from that swarm from serving as a
> close and perhaps potent source of infection for your own colonies.
>
> I remain to be convinced that not treating feral swarms
> is generally a good practice for most beekeepers.
 
These are wise musings.
 
I appreciate the great enthusiasm for a people's assult on the mites
via breeding, and I believe that it can have an important place in
dealing with the vampire mite.
 
Nonetheless, I believe that a lot of people tinkering alone in their
backyards with lack of funds, training and leadership will not
accomplish anything useful, and will actually make dealing with the
mite more difficult.
 
Breeding bees is expensive, time consuming, and requires superior
skills in observation as well as diligence in recording, and
performing procedures.
 
It is beyond me (and as some have observed, I think I'm fairly
smart).  Maybe I'm wrong in using myself as a measure, but know that
even though I do have a little scientific training, I have many
things to do, many distractions, and I have to make a living from the
bees.  That means I may have to change my plans in midstream.  If I
am producing honey this year, next I might want to produce bulk bees
and another year pollinate.  This means shoddy science.
 
I realise hobbyists have more flexibility and less pressure, however
I suspect most are lacking information, and resources, and exposure
to the kind of training and support that is necessary to achieve
anything meaningful or lasting in such a technical field.
 
Don't get wrong - there are a few that are a very notable exceptions
to this.
 
If we want to get involved in a program, the way would be to be sure
to approach and fund selected professional scientists who can design
a program and assign tasks to those of us who wish to participate.
 
I am afraid that an uncoordinated approach by many random independant
beekeepers will only result in resevoirs of varroa in unknown spots,
that will lead to repeated reinfestation of hobbyist and commercial
neighbours that have just completed expensive treatments.
 
If people want to leave their hives to see if they are varroa
resistant, and if they care at all for their neighbours, they should
IMO sample each hive regularly.  When a serious mite threshold is
reached, remove the hive from the test and treat it. At that point,
it could be requeened and returned to the trial. This would allow the
testing to go on it without becoming a nuisance.
 
All this brings us again to the implied question of varroa
resistance and varroa proofness.  I doubt that there are any bees
extant that are varroa proof.  I very much doubt that there are any
that can reliably survive for several seasons without some help.
 
Since it is likely that every strain - even the best - will need
*some* treatment occasionally, what measure of resistance can the
casual observer use?  Going a year or so without needing treatment
may or may not mean something - perhaps that it has a good spot in
the yard of bees or that it robbed out a hive that had an illegal
fluvalinate treatment - I don't know.
 
Because of the difficulty in assessing stock, and the usual problems
in bee breeding, technical leadership is required, and I think we'd
all be much better off if those who want to try to locate and select
for varroa resistance be certain of their own qualifications to do
so.
 
If they are in the slightest doubt, guidance from extension services
and universities and research stations would be advisable to avoid
wasting a lot of effort and harboring a pest to the detriment of
others.
 
I place my hope in the scientific community to solve this problem -
with strong support and assistance and guidance by beekeepers.
 
However, we must keep our eyes peeled.  It was keen observation of
an anomaly and an inquiring mind that led to penicillin and also
(closer to beekeeping) vegetable grease vs acarine.
 
We are all capable of these kinds of observations, and if we see a
colony(s) that doesn't seem to be bothered by the mite, we should ask
not so much, "Is this strain in fact a super bee?", but rather, "What
environmental factors might account for the resistance here?"
 
Have a good day.