>...but where did you acquire your knowledge in toxicology and host pathogen Relationships to make such statements as to imply the varroa problem is treatment caused and would have been extinguished 20 years ago if all had followed no treatment.
First, I would say I have heard at least three of the prominent entomologists who specialize in honey bees say the same during conversations with them except they said that 14 years ago. Second, I think you'll find I have read a lot of the research. Third I've been keeping bees 43 years and experimenting all of those years and I've been keeping them with no Varroa treatments for all but two of those years, though, of course, the Varroa did not arrive until 1987 and probably didn't get to me until the 1990s. I have a pretty good practical grasp of bees and beekeeping
My knowledge of most things come from reading constantly, fitting what I read into relationships with other things to develop an overall picture of the world and having a very good memory. In addition to my extensive reading across my entire life, I also have 16 hours of college chemistry and 16 hours of college biology, among other subjects. I'm not claiming to be the world expert on anything, but I am far from uninformed. My model of the world is flawed, as everyone's is, but it is pretty broad in scope and pretty deep on many topics.
>Also when you sell queens, you make no mention, none at all, not a word on "varroa resistance queens". I will buy your queens if you will guarantee me, "I will not worry about varroa for 14 years, or 15 years as stated on this thread." Your price as mentioned, I will buy your queens IF guaranteed.
I have never claimed to have Varroa resistant queens. I think more than half of the Varroa issue is due to enlarged cell size. But I do see signs of VSH, though I do not try to breed for it. I think genetic Varroa resistance is a combination of many traits which makes it both complex and simple--complex in the sense that trying to identify, test for and breed for each of those traits would be too much to keep track of--simple in the sense that you have merely to stop treating to be breeding for them.
http://bushfarms.com/beeswholebee.htmWhat has become clear looking at the BIP statistics from year to year on losses is there is little difference between losses by people treating and people not treating. This has now led to the "treaters" blaming the failure of treating on the "treatment free" beekeepers in order to avoid changing their model of the world to agree with reality. They had to invent "mite bombs" in order to attempt to explain it. Though I fail to understand why they believe this is a logical argument.
>Michael, I find that such a dangerous absolutist statement for someone in your position to make.
I generally avoid them. But frankly I got back to just beekeeping 14 years ago and have no issues with Varroa and I'm tired of talking about a problem I don't have.
> Randy runs well in excess of 400 colonies (maybe a 1000 ?), and rears 2500 queens each season, and yet even with those numbers hasn't yet 'cracked the problem'.
Odd, he tried Honey Super Cell and mentioned that he couldn't kill that colony and it continued to not have any Varroa problems, yet he tries to credit it to something other than cell size. As long as Randy continues to treat, he will not be able to breed bees that don't require treatment. It's like trying to breed race horses but you never race them.
I never went through the "pain of the bond method". I lost all of them and had nothing to breed from until I regressed the size.
http://bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm>People are going "treatment free" and growing hives full of mites. Those mites are spread around to all the rest of us no matter what we are doing or not doing. I don't doubt that people have good intentions. I don't doubt MB when he says he has been treatment free all these years. I do have a problem with promoting this above all other things because for many people it does not work. It may be their environment, or their experience level, or their neighbor down the road with hives full of mites, but the end result is the same.
And there is the "mite bomb" explanation...
I have heard various estimates on how many people are not treating for Varroa, some are very high percentages. My experience with people I meet is that probably at least half of the beekeepers are not treating for Varroa and most of those are doing as well or better than those people who are treating. The problem, though, will continue to be perpetuated as long as people perpetuate bees that require treatments and those drones are still mating out there, and as long as people continue to build "Varroa factories" of enlarged cells.
http://bushfarms.com/beesnotreatments.htmWhen someone doesn't treat and their bees survive they are told by the "treaters" that it's only a matter of time. If they don't treat and their bees die, it's because they didn't treat. If they treat and their bees die, they are told it was too late, or too soon, or they didn't treat often enough. If they treat and they don't die, it's because they treated.
Reality is, people who treat and people who don?t treat lose hives and sooner or later every hive will end up queenless after it swarms, or not build up enough for winter, or start too much brood too early and get caught on brood and "cold starve".
http://bushfarms.com/beeshardestthing.htm