Hello Barry & All,
I feel the need to answer several of these questions but do not want to
compare people trying 4.9mm foundation with those trying SMR.  It is like
comparing apples to oranges.  My biggest concern with going to 4.9mm cell
size has ALWAYS been the labor/cost factor.  Plus if the small hive beetle
continues to spread ALL wax combs are food for small hive beetles. Plastic
can be salvaged.
>
> I would call it nature doing what nature does best. If feral bees are such
a
> prized item for their natural ability to survive varroa, then what does
this
> say about our current efforts to breed better queens?

Feral bees are prized for their rarity.
FACT : A very low percent of feral bess have survived the mites. Those feral
bees many report seeing are most likely swarms from our hives. If they come
from treated hives they could last two years. Plus there is no way of
knowing all the hives in a given area. New beekeepers buy packages through
the mail and start with bees every year.


Why do we always look to some other place or some other
> breeder for "better" queens? Is there something wrong with the ones our
own  bees raise? I think not.

It is a long proven fact bees tend to raise queens from to old a larvae and
when eggs are given to large starter colonies by queen breeders the queens
are larger and better performers.  My point is if the beekeeper is grafting
and using starter colonies and raising his queens I agree with Barry but if
the beekeeper is just sitting a frame of eggs aside then I disagree.

> I also find it interesting that many are jumping right in line for their
SMR
> queens without 'critical analysis', which has been attributed to those
> interested in employing the 4.9 cell size, even when so much is unknown
> about how and if this trait will work in the long run in real life
> situations.

I agree with Barry here. I wonder myself at the total acceptance without
question. I believe because the bees are coming from the USDA instead of
beekeepers many are willing to follow. The data I have studied on SMR which
has not been made public backs up the SMR data at the Baton Rouge site.
These bees are resistant to varroa and the resistant is improving in some
cases to around 100%. The big unknown is as Barry says:
"so much is unknown about how and if this trait will work in the long run in
real life situations".  Dr. Harbo's view (in my opinion) is that we saturate
or bees with SMR queens and the trait will become common in all U.S. bees
and slowly  will emerge bees resistant to varroa. I have no doubt about the
SMR of the queens coming from Dr. Harbo.  My question is (like Barry's) will
the trait remain as Dr. Harbo says. After looking at the data I personally
am getting *on board*.  The *train ride* timetable is two years. Maybe
longer if I decide to treat the SMR queens hives this fall. Putting the new
SMR queens into hives with a high mite load in fall is not good.  I feel I
need to reduce the mite load and let all the older eggs/brood emerge and
clean the mites off the older bees (not SMR daughters) going into this
winter. The SMR used next spring is a different story. If the mite load is
low they will never be treated for the required two years. The  mite load
testing will have to be done on a regular basis. Quite a bit extra work
instead of simply dropping a strip in.

>How will secondary infections be tolerated? Who knows.

Not much has been published on Bee-L from the United Kingdom on the work of
Dr. Norman Carrick.  Dr. Carrick and I correspond through direct email and
he has sent results from his virus experiments for me to look at which have
not been made public but will be presented in South Africa. Not to give away
his findings I won't go into detail but in short he believes mellifera can
easily support varroa if not for the secondary infections. In my opinion
with SMR and IPM controls such as 4.9mm foundation which greatly reduce
varroa infestations you see a proportionate reduction in secondary
infections. I believe our researchers could give the exact percent of
reduction. The Lusbys claims of secondary infection reductions is simply
from the lower varroa load in my opinion (and others).
Sincerely,
Bob Harrison
Odessa, Missouri