>
> > I still believe that
> replacing mitacide contaminated comb is a good thing but I have also
> learned
> that mitacide contaminated comb will raise healthy bees when all other
> factors are under control.


Bob, I was speaking to the Calif Bee Breeders Assoc yesterday.  For them,
miticide contaminated comb is a major issue.  Not for their production
colonies, but for their cell starters and finishers, and their drone mother
colonies.

I place my own bees on commercial foundation each year, and they do "well."
But we really don't know whether they would do better on uncontaminated
comb.  Recent research clearly documents the negative effects of coumaphos
and fluvalinate contaminated combs on larval development.  Sure the colonies
may look strong, but how strong with they look without those sublethal
effects?

Work by Dr Diana Cox Foster and others points out that exposure to different
miticides affects the levels of different viruses in the colonies.  We
simply do not know whether the miticides act as epigenetic triggers that
affect the bee immune system, or other aspects of their biology.

One little mentioned point is that we have been selecting bees for some
years to become more resistant to miticides (since we only breed off of
colonies that thrive in the presence of miticides).  Note that commercial
beekeepers have ramped up the dosages of miticides that they apply to levels
that were unheard of when the miticide was first used.

This is likely a problem with Aussie packages.  Aussie bees have not been
bred in the presence of the miticides.  When they are brought here and
inoculated with varroa, the mite population quickly builds.  Then the
beekeeper applies a miticide at a high dose that American bees can tolerate,
but that may stress the "naive" Aussie bees.

Randy Oliver

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************