Robin Dartington said:

> Are we not in danger of setting a whole new load of hares running -
> uselessly in circles?

Only if one considers knowing more about a problem to be a
useless distraction.  :)

> There is NO mechanism that restrains the varooa population to a level
> that where the energy losses are just affordable - and if there were,
> colonies would survive but produce no surplus honey.

There are colonies that survive low-level varroa infestations over
the long term and produce adequate crops.  This would appear to be
an acceptable "restraint of varroa population".  We just don't know
how to assure all colonies such conditions.  Not yet, anyway.

> It is surely impossible to eliminate viruses.

Have you pulled up http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/
and typed "antiviral" into the search box?

It appears that practical antivirals are a growth area, with more than
30 clinical trials currently recruiting participants in the USA.  Yes,
these studies are for humans, not bees or mites, but look at the
technology spin-off from human research that allows the mapping of the
"beenome" and  Dr. Chen's work. The advances made in other areas of
science can and do apply to bees and mites.

Since there are virus-free bees and virus-free colonies, perhaps the
"goal" is to prevent colonies from getting (or spreading) viruses
in the first place.  It would appear that clear that (more) conservative
management of varroa populations can reduce the odds of a colony
"getting viruses".

> Viruses are endemic in colonies

But if not for varroa, it appears that they would be much less endemic.

We don't really know the exact percentage of colonies "with viruses"
for sure, but techniques like those used by Dr. Chen allow us to do
an actual survey to find actual viruses in individual bees, rather
than jumping to the (unfounded) conclusion that colonies have viruses
based upon mere observation of overt physical symptoms that MAY be
caused by viruses, but could be caused by any one of a number of
possible causes.

> The significance of Winston et al ' studies is that it is wrong to think
> that varooa do not matter until a theshold is reached - varooa at any level
> weaken the colony thru increasing virus.

But the Chen work shows that viruses are not often spread by varroa at a
level of infestation equal to a maximum of one varroa mite per brood cell,
so varroa at some low level do NOT appear to "weaken the colony thru
increasing virus".

I would simply say "the acceptable threshold is lower than we suspected",
rather than saying that "varroa at any level weaken the colony".

> Having failed to find ways kill varooa effectively and safely with all sorts
> of poisons (apart from fluvalinate), please let us be spared a fresh wave of
> dangerous amateur experiments, this time aiming to kill viruses on honey
> bees!

I doubt if any "amateur" would attempt to address viruses, but I don't see any
potential danger in "amateur experiments".  I'd encourage them!  Science used
to be done by nothing but "amateurs".  A paycheck does not make someone a
scientist.
A paycheck does not even make someone a better scientist.  A paycheck merely
implies that someone wants a scientist to work on a specific problem.


                jim (a mere quantum mechanic)

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