Hi All,
I can't believe I'm doing this!  : )


> I'm not sure where Randy thinks the scale on the Y axis  changes in he 
> graph cited several posts ago
You totally missed my point, Jim.  If others did, let me know.


, and I've yet to hear anyone claim to have a sampling technique better than 
ether rolls.
Ether roll is notoriously unreliable.  Read my article on the subject.


> This statement flies in the face of the ENTIRE BASIC
> CONCEPT OF IPM itself, where the goal is to only
> treat when and where it is necessary to do so,
Jim, did you take the caffeine out of your coffee or something?
Who says that you need to use chemicals at an early stage of population 
growth?  Use of biotechnical methods is extremely effective then.  Get a 
grip, Jim.



> Randy seems to have thought that a discussion of IPM
> data collection would not be complete without discussing
> his approach of using mite fall as a result of treatment
> with powdered sugar as if it were a reliable number.

Funny you should mention.
The second trial that we are going to undertake is to compare dusting 
induced mite fall to actual percent mite infestation of each colony measured 
by the gold standard alcohol wash.  Right now I have no idea how well it 
correlates.  But I will, based upon  HARD WON DATA.

> While there are such protocols for the short-term use
> of Apistan strips (and even CheckMite strips) in
> prompting mite fall, the gold standard remains the
> "natural mite fall" from a colony not subjected to
> any outside influence or overt attempt to dislodge
> mites.

Natural mite fall counts can be rife with error--read my article on the 
subject.

>  So it is impossible to say if the numbers
> generated by treatment with powdered sugar are
> consistent, or of any value at all.

Wow, I can agree with you on this.  Which is why I'm going to collect the 
data described above.  However, preliminary results indicate that 
dusting-induced mite drop is a pretty reliable indicator of the phoretic 
mite population.


> Other approaches to application methods, such as Randy's
> practice of dumping the sugar on the top bars, and using
> a bee brush to spread it around, so that it falls between
> the top bars, may or may not be as effective.  On the
> other hand, they may be more effective - we just don't
> know, do we?

We're sure going to find out, aren't we?  : )
Preliminary results, based upon mite counts are very promising.



> I'm not sure how we got off "IPM" and onto Randy's  weekly powdered sugar 
> dusting techniques,

Weekly dusting would only be indicated at high mite levels.

Randy Oliver 

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