In a message dated 21/01/2010 14:30:44 GMT Standard Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

> I  said in the post that I was using varroa 'as the main problem, and a
>  marker'.  So resistance to varroa is what I meant.  With such   
resistance
> of course you also gain resistance to all the disease  organisms  
vectored by
> the mites.

"Actually, you do not. You only reduce the number of vectors.  Pathogen
resistance is independent of Varroa."
 
Yes, good point.  However the fact that reducing varroa mite  levels by any 
means will tend to reduce vulnerability to 'secondary' infections  is not 
by any means irrelevant.  
 
It might be easier for the purposes of this discussion to generalise away  
from specific pests and pathogens and work from, as it were, the other  end. 
 _Whatever_ causes failing health is the problem.  Locating bees  _best 
able to thrive without assistance_ is the goal.  The  questions then is: which 
Aussie bees best meet that aim, and do they meet  it as well as, or better 
than, locally raised bees.  And, how can we  tell?  
 
We must also ask: to what degree do any imports undermine the  resistance 
of US bees they come into contact with?  Given that the  nationwide 
development of broad-spectrum resistant stock (that's pretty  much 'healthy' stock as 
far as I can see) is a clearly desirable goal, what  contribution, positive 
and negative do imports make?  
 
Does anyone see a problem with speaking in these general terms?  
 
Mike

 
 

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