Yes, I know the subject has a typo. I am leaving it
  be so as to stay in the same "thread" for those who
  sort the deluge of Bee-L messages by subject/title.
  I have also been informed by a surprisingly large
  number of people who clearly have far too much time
  on their hands that I recently spelled "Nasanov"
  (pheromone) as "Nasarov".  My abject apologies.
  To review, play something by "Nasarov" on the stereo
  while putting the "Nasanov" in the bait hives.  :)


...anyway, Trevor Weatherhead said:

> We don't use your method but we have been testing
> beekeepers by sugar shake method for mites

I don't think anyone who has to deal with varroa mites would say
that the "sugar shake" was as "reliable" a test as an ether roll
when attempting to detect a low-level infestation.  I'd hazard
that most experts would agree that the risk of false negatives
and certainty of lower counts is a factor when using the sugar
shake as compared to the ether roll.

Now, the difference between the two tests is no big deal when
one knows that one has varroa, and one is simply testing for that
elusive "economic threshold".  Beekeepers are clearly more willing
to do the sugar shakes on a regular basis, since it does not force
one to kill any bees. The sugar-shake test is a good thing for areas
known to have varroa.

But if other beekeepers would try this, and report results to the
group, we may be able to prove a crucial point to those who are
lucky enough to not yet have enough varroa of their own to test this:

1) Do a sugar shake, transfer the bees to a second (clean) jar,
   and do an ether roll. The mites that you see in the ether roll
   jar are the ones that the sugar shake missed.  (I'll bet that
   even a skilled sugar shaker can get at least a single-digit
   varroa count in the ether bottle with ease.)

2) If you want, do multiple sugar shakes in a succession of clean
   jars on the same set of bees, and then transfer them to the
   ether jar.  You will have a very good chance of getting a mite
   count with the ether no matter how many times you sugar shake.
   (I'll concede that some ether rolls may show "zero mites" after
   several consecutive and aggressive sugar shakes in a row.)

Given the Australian goal of wanting to find the FIRST varroa mites
to show up in a hive, and detect them as early as possible, I'd have
to suggest that we owe it to our Australian colleagues to verify that
the sugar shake is NOT a good "sentinel test" when the goal is to
find very low-level mite infestations.

> and some queen breeders by flumethrin strips.  We also have sentinel
> hives at ports which are regularly checked with flumethrin strips.
> Negative results so far.

I know that flumethrin is very similar chemically to fluvalinate (Apistan),
but does anyone know why the USA uses fluvalinate rather than flumethrin?

Again, the concern is that Australia, who has yet to see a varroa mite,
may benefit from the hard-won field experience in actual hand-to-hand
(ok, "hand-to-tarsal claw", if you must) combat with these mites.


        jim (who's mighty mites might alight
           in the night, or might not)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::