> There is much more speculation and assumption in this discussion than
> measurement and observation.  As has been pointed out previously by one astute
> member, some of the experiments necessary to debunk this amazing
> attractive myth are already running in nature and in our hives, if only
> we can push away from the desk, set aside our prejudices and pet theories,
> and go outside and take a look.

I think maybe I should expand on this.  The kind of useful observations that
could lead to a greater understanding of the phenomena we are discussing is not
beyond any of us that have access to even one hive of bees with varroa
sufficient to be a problem.

I'll go further into this below, but first, I want to give a simple explanation
for Lusby's success in reducing the effect of varroa on their bees.  IMO, we
don't need to have any 'retrogression' magic happening to explain Lusbys'
experience.

--- begin simple explanation ---

Just for clarification, I do not question whether Lusbys are getting the results
they claim or not.  What I question is the explanations that are being given and
whether their methods are indeed responsible for what they observe.  Others
worldwide are finding that in a few generations they can reduce the varroa
populations by 50% simply by selection from their existing stocks, so if the
Lusbys have been at it as long as they have (8? years if I recall), it is not
surprising that they are reducing the varroa levels a lot.

Moreover, since the bees in their area were becoming africanized during his
timeframe and since they are selecting bees that tolerate varroa, and since AHB
tend to tolerate varroa better than the average European strain, and since the
AHB naturally uses a cell around the 4.9 mm mark, it is not at all surprising
that in succeeding generations Lusbys find the bees they raise do well on 4.9 mm
foundation.

I frankly doubt that in non-africanized areas, that this approach will work at
all unless a non-commercial strain is dominant such as the old English bee or
the German black bee.  These latter bees are smaller and were popular around the
turn of the 20th century.  This fact probably accounts for the popularity of the
slightly smaller(~5.1 mm)foundation made then.  During the 20th century,
Italians and other larger bees became popular and currently the popular
commercial breeds in Canada and USA and  -- it seems from all reports I have
received -- in Europe as well, like to build their combs around 5.2 to 5.3 mm
across.  Currently several popular foundations are around 5.4 mm which is a bit
roomy. Pierco is about 5.25 mm, a size I consider ideal for my bees. (I asked
them and they said it is perfect).

Additionally, I should hasten to add that, in regard to the varroa levels being
observed by Lusbys and the conclusions being drawn, there are many other
potential confounding factors that may have come into play.  Ask any researcher
who has to observe and encourage varroa development, and I think you will be
told that varroa levels are not all that easy to predict and somewhat fickle.

Unknown local effects can cause mite populations not to mushroom as expected in
one situation, then fail to appear the next.  When we are trying to raise bees,
we find that it is sometimes hard to meet our population targets due to
unexplained factors.  Similarly, when trying to manage varroa for testing,
sometimes researchers find that the mites just fail to thrive when they should.
Very Frustrating.

In my case, I cannot explain why I do not as have high levels of observed varroa
as I expected this year.  I just don't right now, but I know I *should* have
much more than I can find.  I'm not complaining, just reporting.

--- end simple explanation ---

Albert Einstein did a lot of his best work without a laboratory or fancy
apparatus or grants.  He just used his head and thought about what he knew and
about what he observed.

Each of us has hives of bees and many of us have varroa.  Some of us have lots
of varroa.  Maybe some of us have good observation and reasoning skills.

This spring a young scientist discovered signs of varroa mite occupation in a
package hive in a yard that had been established from Australian packages in
pretty good isolation from other hives (we thought).  I mention this because
there are several interesting aspects.

* First, he saw that a mite had been reproducing there.  That means that as
beekeepers, we can examine our brood comb and actually see what the mites are
doing if we are patient.  We can even compare mite activity on different combs
if we have several different brands of foundation in use.  We can also examine
emerging bees to see how many mites come out with them, if any.  Does the type
of comb make a difference?  What about the type of bee?

* Second, we can try to figure out what is going on.  In the case above, do we
conclude that the mites came with the packages? Or do we conclude that the mites
somehow were picked up locally?  Australia is not supposed to have varroa.  we
know that bees in our area do.

What we conclude from our observations -- or whether we decide we don't have
enough information from our observations to make conclusions -- will be a test
of our objectivity and reasoning capabilities.

allen
---
A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/
Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb,
unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving
bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served...