While Peter offers some fine points, I don't know why the 
beekeeping version of IPM remains so unlike any other 
application of IPM in any other segment of agriculture.

Things like cultural practices, mechanical controls, and
biological controls are choices, not really a required
part of an IPM program.  Making them seem like a requirement
takes the focus away from the primary message of IPM, which
is to measure and track pest levels in a consistent and
meaningful way, so that treatment decisions can be made
based upon hard data, rather than guesswork or habit.

I've joked in my talks on the subject that one could have
a perfectly acceptable IPM program even if the sole control
methodology available was the use of short-range battlefield 
tactical nuclear weapons.  The use of such a "harsh" control
would certainly focus attention on good decision making and
prudent use of the "pest control", wouldn't it?

One of the problems in getting beekeepers to embrace and adopt 
IPM methodologies is that it is hard to teach the basics if
one is "preaching at them" about the use of additional equipment
(traps), labor-intensive tasks (drone brood removal and sugar
dusting), and not-ready-for-prime-time schemes (biological controls).  
I've sat in such workshops, and the sound of eyes rolling becomes
deafening.  The speaker's credibility is undercut by the preaching.

So, let's just admit that the smallest treatable unit in beekeeping
is not the individual hive, but the yard of hives, due to the way
that pests of bees can "drift" and "reinfest" previously treated
hives from untreated hives.

And let's also admit that economics of the business dictate that
most of the "softer" protocols are too time consuming and labor
intensive to "scale up" beyond a hundred hives or so without
becoming too costly to implement.

So, let's focus on measurement, as one cannot control that 
which they do not measure.

Step one would be to admit that there never were, and 
never will be any magic bullets.  (That darn fugus seemed
too good to be true, and sure enough, it was.)  I'm ready
for the next guy who comes along offering magic bullets -
with a rope!  :)


Step two would be to admit that "thresholds" are a sign of 
a delusional state.  If one had a fixed number of plants or 
acres of plants, then a threshold makes sense, in that a
single measurement can yield a snapshot of pests/plants or
pests/per acre.  But when both the pest and bee population
levels vary, a single measurement "threshold" approach prompts
one to treat the strongest hives, that, if properly measured
would have the lower pest/bee ratios, and, worse yet, prompts 
one to not treat the weakest hives, those with the higher
pest/bee ratios.

What matters is the slope of the curve of points plotted as
a result of taking multiple measurements.  When the pest 
count starts to "go exponential", you are in trouble.  If
the pest count grows slowly, you aren't.  You can't have
a curve with a single point plotted, so it is clear that
you need to view "monitoring" as implying that you should
look more than once.

Step three would be to admit that "chemicals" are not a "last
resort", as there are limits on the effectiveness of all 
the treatment options, and the trick is to pick the option 
that will work when treatment is required, meaning that 
seasons and weather dictate which of the many controls is 
most appropriate.  The newer "softer" controls, such as
formic acid and thymol proved to be very frustrating as
direct replacements for Apistan, as they simply are not
effective under the same weather/seasonal conditions as
Apistan.  There are times when "chemicals" may be the 
only viable choice.  Don't position them as a "last
resort" when the supposed "first resort" would be a waste 
of time due to weather (mostly temperature).

So, those who teach should avoid trying to preach.  
IPM is all about data and decisions based upon
consistently collected data.  Choices of treatments 
are just that - choices.

Funny, my artist friends never get into long-winded
discussions of what brand of brushes they use.  They
just talk about art.  My beekeeper friends seem to be
willing to tolerate a wide range of variation in choices
of hive tools, yet any discussion of pest management
focuses on specific control substances.  Some beekeeper
meetings consist of very little actual talk about 
actual beekeeping as a result.

Beekeeping is more than pest and disease control.
I think one of the cheapest, easiest to use,
and safest varroa control tools is the $3.00
plastic push-in queen cage, a very effective 
enhancement to nearly any treatment approach if 
used intelligently.

Every time I say that, I hear the sound of jaws 
hitting the floor, proof that we have all stopped 
being beekeepers somewhere along the way, and have 
turned into exterminators.

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************