Allen, I didn't misunderstand you--I am the last person to want to propogate
"myths," which is exactly why I responded to your post  ;)

The genetics of commercially produced queens far and away come from queen
mother colonies that are dependent upon miticides.  I understand that a
number of producers bring in stock bred for mite resistance.  However, when
I ask the large producers what their main customers are asking for, it
hasn't been mite resistance.

However, I feel that the balance is starting to tip.

>
> >Are the resulting bees [survivor bees] commercially useful?
>

Many find them to be so.  The ARS is currently running a longterm trial in
Andy Card's large commercial migratory operation.   I myself just placed an
order moments ago for a couple of hundred cells from a survivor breeder
whose stock tested well in my operation last season.  They are having no
problem selling queens at above marker prices to repeat commercial
customers.

There are a number of beekeepers that I've spoken to (some on this List) who
run sideline to a thousand or more colonies with zero or very few mite
treatments.

Any using VSH or Russian stock--both "survivor" bred stock are having
success with survivor bees.  So in answer to your question, I'd give a
qualified "yes."

>What would have happened in the meantime to people and crops depending on
bees for livelihood and income in large areas if that were the only route
chosen?

Allen, I already posted my personal experience of devastating loss and
stated that treatment was necessary for staying in business, so I don't
understand why you are asking this!

>
> >South Africa, BTW, is a special case.  The environment is especially
> hospitable to honey bees, and the predominant type there is of a type that
> has been of questionable utility to North American style beekeeping.


I don't get your point.  Can't imagine that South Africa is more hospitable
than many places in the U.S.  And there were two different races of bees
there, both  devasted by varroa when it arrived, at least in the commercial
operations.  We simply got to see the result of what happened when natural
selection was allowed to take its course.  I'm well aware that beekeepers
there were aided by the massive swarm input from the surrounding feral
survivor colonies.

>
> >How much are people willing to gamble?
>

Allen, you are being testy this morning : )  I have never suggested that
anyone gamble.  I was simply replying to your statement  "Have we been
breeding mostly from bees "kept on life support"?  I don't think so."

>Don't underestimate what I do understand, and I stand by my original post
which was very carefully worded, but, as is so often the case, misunderstood
or partially understood.

I don't underestimate your understanding at all, which is why your statement
surprised me!

>
> >IMO, focusing on the probability of survival somewhere, some time, of
> something is a very narrow and simplistic view which disregards the context,
> and the range of probable eventual outcomes.
>

Allen, categorizing my views as "narrow and simplistic" hardly helps the
discussion!
Every species extant today is a "survivor."  The term for nonsurvivors is
"extinct."
We have two sorts of surviving bees today--those that survived with human
help, and those that didn't.
A hundred years from now, the only bees that will be around will be
survivors.  By that time it's likely that beekeepers will have moved beyond
synthetic miticides.  So what are we waiting for now?

I don't feel that we are in disagreement.

Randy Oliver

             ***********************************************
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

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L