>
> Because by treating, you remove the need for any inherent resistance to
> survive the assault.
>
> I don't believe that is correct.

When you do a varroa treatment, you don't ever get 100% effectiveness. Low
to mid 90's is often considered a "good kill." If you do an OAV while brood
is present, your kill rate is what, 60% at best? Plus, depending on the
treatment you use, due to mite drift you instantly have additional mites in
the hive, sometimes a few hours later. All of the colonies have some level
of mites.

Resistance is theorized to develop in honey bees in a number of potential
ways (grooming, VSH, brood temp are just a few). Why would a colony develop
one (or more) of these resistant mechanisms while mite levels are high (say
4%) but would magically lose that ability when the mite levels are low (say
1%, keeping in mind they will never be 0%)? Long term, sure, you're
allowing non-resistant genetics to contribute to the gene pool. But
treating doesn't eliminate or destroy the resistant genetics.

Practically, John Kefuss's bees in France often have rediculously low mite
levels in the colony (to the extent that John gives a Euro for each mite
found in a colony, to anyone willing to search) due to some form of
resistance. And they've maintained that for a decade, even when mite
infested colonies are moved in. Why would a colony lose any inherent
resistance as a result of treating (and getting colony infestation rates
down to 1%), when John's bees have (and have had for successive
generations) even lower mite levels without losing that inherent resistance?

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html