Allen

A very interesting report - thanks.

> SMR bees perform right up there with the HYG strains in
> standard HYG tests, however, hygienic abilities observed in
> bees selected for SMR extend beyond simply detecting and
> removing dead brood.  In addition to doing equally well as
> HYG in detecting and removing dead brood, SMR bees are able
> to detect, uncap, and remove foundress varroa mites that are
> laying eggs and reproducing in cells.

Is there any word on how 'grooming' links with this?  Do bees deliberately
injure foundresses as they are exposed, or is this an activity restricted to
bees discovering phoretic mites (mites hitchhiking on adults).  Such
grooming seems to be an important mechanism of resistance in bees selected
by Alois Wallner in Austria in the 1980s (he called it 'Varroa Killing
Factor'), and something similar was reported to be present in Russians too
in one of the papers out of Baton Rouge.  Is this grooming (biting) just
another manifestation of the same underlying mechanism, or a separate one?
This has big implications for those using the 'percentage of damaged mites'
amongst the fallen mites as a selection criterion.

Did anyone discuss the differences between drone and worker brood?  Most of
the research seems focussed on worker brood - and that could be enough of
course as drones are only raised seasonally - but is there any indication
that the same resistance mechanisms function during mite reproduction in
drone brood?

all the best

Gavin.

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