Tom Barrett wrote:

> ... Whan varroa was first discovered in Ireland in 1998, strident efforts
were
> made by our Department of Agriculture to eliminate the pest and
> unfortunately to no avail.
strident: to make a harsh noise; harsh sounding: GRATING; also SHRILL
I have to agree with Tom, "strident efforts...unfortunately to no avail".
My recollection was that initially, hives were being burned and beekeepers
were being compensated until the D of A discovered that varroa was far more
widespread than they originally thought.  It seemed to me that the D of A
came to the realization that they couldn't afford to compensate all the
beekeepers for all the burned hives!  During my visit, the gentleman from
the D of A commented that there were known infestations in Slago which would
be "treated" once the beekeeper harvested his honey.  By this time burning
had ceased, and the D of A's attitude had gotten lax to the point that
they'd let the infestation go until after harvest.

In contrast, in New Zealand when varroa was first detected it was quickly
determined the infestation was more widespread than initially feared.
Fortunately, NZ skipped the burning phase.

The message at Gormanston last summer, and a lesson for NZ all beekeepers is
that there IS life after varroa.  The mite will not be contained, neither
will it be eradicated.  Beekeepers must adapt and learn to live with the
problem.  Limiting movement of bees may slow the spread, but IMO, limiting
beekeepers is like trying to hold water in your hands, at least in the
States.

Rather than focusing on containment/eradication, a futile attempt,
beekeepers in newly colonized varroa territory will be best served learning
how to adapt to the mites' presence.

Aaron Morris - I think, therefore I bee!