> In the first place, mite growth never "goes exponential," 
> it is exponential as soon as bees begin broodrearing.

OK, semantics again - the last refuge of a man with his
back to the wall.  :)
Look at the graph I cited:

http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mmanual/2.9.05-2.JPG
(Bee population is the solid line, mite population 
is the dotted line)

What I called "going exponential" shows up in June
on that graph.  The line is no longer straight,
but instead curved, showing that one clearly has
more than linear growth.  (Yes, the entire curve
can be called "exponential", but not until one
plots the points that start to curve upwards.)

> I'm not sure if drone trapping and powdered sugar 
> dusting will be commercially viable.  

OK, let's talk about your treatment choices, aa
you clearly are promoting them as "effective"
to other beekeepers in ABJ, and doing so without
any statistical rigor... no, without any statistics
or controls at all!

Well, drone trapping seems a bit of a stretch, given
the ticking time bomb that is a frame full of drone
brood.  Somehow I'd guess that this approach is
only practical for the smaller-scale operations.  :)

But sugar dusting as you do it (pouring sugar on the
top bars, and brushing it down between the frames) may
or may not provide a level of control equal to the
application methodology developed back in 2000 by
the "inventor" of the approach.  I can see how the 
bees highest on the frames would be showered with
sugar, but I don't see how one would get enough of
the small (5 to 15 micron) particles required to
clog the tarsal pads of varroa on bees that are
not near the tops of the frames, and dislodge them.
This is why "poofing" the sugar was the suggested 
technique, as it maximizes the number of fine particles,
and assures more complete coverage.  (You can find
my old Bee-L "Step-By-Step" post covering the approach
with powdered sugar that was supported by actual
studies if you care to, or you can look at the
ABJ's from 2000.)

While the brushing approach certainly does reduce
the time and labor required, and may be a significant
improvement in technique, I don't think that one
can claim that this approach has similar efficacy
to the application methods that have been proven
by controlled studies to have a significant impact
on varroa populations.

Technique matters.  For example, using 9mm ammo
in a blow-dart gun will have nowhere near the impact
of using 9mm ammo in a pistol.  :)

> feedback on the methods this year from small beeks has 
> been incredible!  

Were you around back when everyone was all excited about
food-grade mineral oil?  Sadly, excitement and enthusiasm
does not imply that the technique has any value in doing
the job.  Sucracide is another recent example.  The
history of late 20th-Century beekeeping is littered with
the wreckage of things that seemed like a good idea at
the time.

> Sugar dusting over a screened bottom gives them immediate 
> feedback on their mite infestation every time they dust.

Well, one can spray pure water on bees and see what appears
to be an impressive "result" in terms of mite fall.  The
question has to be about the results of passive ("natural")
mite fall a week after the treatment, and the impact (if any)
on the slope of the curve of the varroa population growth.

> If counts are up, they dust again in a week;  if counts are 
> low, they can wait a month.  

So, the "count" is a count of what fell as a direct result
of the powdered sugar treatment?  Wow, that would be such a 
random number, one could never determine the actual impact
of the treatment.

> Very empowering, 

Emotionally satisfying, perhaps.
All that is lacking is a "weapon" similar to the foggers.
(Big noise, lots of "smoke", very emotionally satisfying.)
But I would not call it "empowering" unless what resulted
was lower natural mite drops at some point after the
treatment.  To be "empowering", first it has to be effective.

> and keeps them very much in touch with the level of mite 
> infestation.  

I'm pretty certain you can't make any conclusions from the
mere number of mites dislodged by the treatment itself.
Ask someone who has published a few mite studies, I think
you will find that mite fall counts from treatment have
been shown to be misleading, no matter what treatment
is chosen.

> Respondents are bringing high mite counts down, and 
> maintaining low mite counts.

See above, I'm not sure you can make that statement
based upon the way you are collecting your numbers.

What was the term you slung in my general direction 
a few weeks or months ago?  Oh, that's right- "Vain-Glorious".
I lot of people thought "Sucracide" worked great too...
until the numbers came in from someone who knew how
to count mites and do their math.

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