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