Attempting to dig into the treasure trove of knowledge held by others (using Bee-L!), Max. Watkins
made the comment that:

"There's always a cost to the organism [mites in this case] in being resistant and if the selection
pressure, i.e. the treatment type, is removed then the "normal" susceptible characters will once
again predominate in a population."

This feature may be common knowledge to many! - but not me.
Are the mites exhibiting a change from the "original model" having to pay in some metabolic manner
(eg.energy expenditure etc.) in the fueling of their resistance?
The manner in which the "cost to the organism" is presented suggests that it, the cost, is one that
is detrimental - when compared to the "original" infesting beast.

Taking this into another domain:

Breeding of bees.
Using the above as a truth, any selection for a trait, i.e. using a character and enhancing it will
therefore have a cost, when the "new strain" is compared to the original. This would therefore
suggest that a strain of bee exhibiting many of the required beekeepers aspirations is a pipe dream.
Not only that, but the further we get away from the original model - the worse matters are going to
be.
Selective breeding according to the above may result in bees being better for some traits but as
time progresses, the pressures from other costs will eventually deem that improvement will be
overridden by the disadvantages arriving from ever more directions, such as bacterial, parasite and
viral vulnerability.

Concluding question: How good is "new"?

Regards,
Peter

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