Hi Blane & All,

Blane writes
> Hold on there Keith.

You hold on if you want to Blane,I don't have to hold on, I choose to march
forward. d:~)>

I wrote;
> "I get it. Even the USDA feels it is worthless to spend time or bother
> to
> count a "very little" amount of mites. They probably have better things
> to
> do, like try to figure what strain of bee would be mite resistant enough
> to
> survive, sustain and make surplus honey and all the while be gentle.

And Blane wrote in part;
> USDA researchers have developed the SMR line of
> honeybees that are resistant to varroa and released them to beekeepers
> while continuing to select them for varroa resistance and other
> important traits.  They have taken the time with these bees to carefully
> count how many mites are in the colonies and the colonies of hybrids (
> open mated daughter queens ).  Likewise with the Russian stock they have
> imported and continue to select for varroa resistance and other
> important traits.
>

Reply;
In other words similar to what I stated above.

Blane here again;
> They don't claim complete varroa resistance but continue to work
> for increasing resistance and this does not require melting down all
> your combs and shaking down the bees etc.

My reply;
This is good. Shaking down bees is just a tool that some beekeepers may
choose to use in helping their bees. It is for more than helping to hold
down varroa that I and other beekeepers make the choice to down size the
worker bee.

Again Blane;
> Simply requeening with these
> documented more resistant stocks by beekeepers.  Not all beekeepers who
> are trying these bees are treating with acaricides either and some have
> gone a number of years without such treatments.
>

Me writing;
can these documents be viewed and how can I define "a number of years"?

Blane expresses his opinion;
> Honeybee researchers have given us beekeepers some varroa resistant
> stocks and also methods we can all use to select more varroa resistant
> bees on our own.  They have also been on the front lines finding
> treatments to keep the bees alive until the stocks are fully resistant
> to the mites.  We need both.

My opinionated reply;
I appreciate what researchers have done with stocks and some methods. When
you write "treatments", I assume you mean chemical treatments. If so I do
not agree "We need both". There are other treatments that have not been
looked at close enough by the researchers, such as worker cell size. For
some reason this simple treatment is being avoided like it is a scourge or a
plague.

Blane;
> The lack of actual counts by the Lusbys is
> a concern for me since I have seen colonies survive without treatment
> for more than two years and these colonies were not resistant eventually
> being killed by the mites.
>

Me;
Yet this has not happened to the Lusby's. If it is truly a concern for you
why not go and count them and report  back. Others may believe your
observations or not. I, for one, would appreciate your findings.

Blane, How would a beekeeper count mites in an apiary that is managed
biologically without the use of a miticide to induce a mite crash, maybe
heat, a sound frequency, or??

Blane;
> Sometimes I suspect that
> the published data doesn't match with the claims in research reports but
> the only way I can come to that conclusion reasonably is by being able
> to look at the data.
>

Me finally concluding;
This is true, but the data has to be believed. The best I can do is test,
trial and try and come to conclusions for myself. With all the pros and cons
with data it can make heads spin looking for a direction to turn. I simply
choose the method I feel comfortable with and march forward.

Keeping bees is a responsibility, happy Beekeeping,  d:~)>
  .  ..
c(((([
Keith Malone
Chugiak, Alaska USA
[log in to unmask]
http://takeoff.to/alaskahoney

Check out current weather in my area and 5 day forecast;
http://www.wx.com/myweather.cfm?ZIP=99654