Peter Borst asked:

>> Is there a feeling against doing the ether roll?

Karen Oland answered:

> Some published paper claimed the ether roll and sugar roll (basically
> the same, but no dead bees) were not reliable in predicting true mite
> levels in hives.

While there are some who may quibble with me over arcane
technical points of statistics,  I will make a claim:

It simply does not matter which approach you use!
Any of them will work well for the purpose at hand.
Pick one, and stick with it.

Why do I say this?  Because all methods of counting
varroa are "sampling methods", and none of these sampling
methods has ever been shown to my satisfaction to have ANY
consistent connection to any "true mite level".  Therefore, I
contend that there simply is no reliable way to predict "true mite
levels" in hives with any accuracy.

Now I will make an statement that may seem outrageous to some:

A practical beekeeper should not care about
the absolute number of mites in a hive!

What matters is using a consistent sampling and counting
methodology, and looking for the change in the number of
mites you count using your (consistent) methodologies.

When mite counts start to show signs of exponential growth,
take off the supers and treat the hive, or risk losing it before Halloween.

All that matters is the "delta" between counts of mites you CAN find,
the change over the last three or four readings.

Everyone seems to want to follow some sort of "K.I.S.S. principle".
They want a magical way to do ONE test, and, based upon some
arbitrary number in isolation, know if to treat or not.
Forget it - it is a foolish fantasy.  Never let a fool kiss you, or let a kiss fool you.

To mangle Shakespeare, and mix sonnets with plays
(a multiple-count felony in most jurisdictions):

        "When I do count the drop that tells the time...
        To treat, or not to treat - that is the question!"

        To bee, or not to bee, that will be the answer.


                jim