Hi Everyone, > >When varroa mite levels are continually low enough in the colonies one > >can discontinue treatment (once mite populations remain below the > >economic threshold ). > > The fastest way to select for these queens is to not treat... >...you will likely acheive your goal that much faster. In addition to Allen's good reply I would only like to point out that if Szabo had just stopped treatment, from their own data on mite populations the first three years of selection none of their colonies would have been likely to survive. Without surviving colonies you have nothing to continue the selection from. This is the problem with selecting for varroa mite resistance to keep enough colonies alive to continue the selection process through the first several years of the breeding program. The use of miticide also gives a very good indication of the total population of varroa in each hive if monitoring is done with sticky boards and this is the information you need to make the selection of those colonies with the lowest mite population. Dee's observation that natural mite drop is not always the best indicator of total mite population is relevent here. If you don't have a good comparison of total actual mite population how can you select the best or most resistant queens from the next generation? Again the use of miticide can give this important imformation and lead to resistant stock in a shorter time than just letting varroa kill the suspectable colonies. It often takes varroa over a year to kill a colony as resistance of the stock is increased how can you select surviving one year queens that are most resistant without somehow measuring the total mite population in the colonies? FWIW Lets use whatever works to reach our common goal. blane ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture [log in to unmask]