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]