> First thing I would suggest from the application side of beekeeping is the real large plus of promoting bees that are not treated is you no longer have to perform this thankless and very much error prone process.  From the academic side of my experiences I would suggest in almost all things there is no best.

We hear this a lot: I am not going to treat so I don't check for mites. I always encourage mite checks. In our area it is very rare to see hives that don't have heavy mite loads by August, and these hives will either crash in fall or die in winter unless treated. I have not yet seen bees that can survive untreated in my area.

I have bought bees from Texas and they developed far fewer mites than conventional bees but they still went over the threshold. What you observe and what I observe may be a regional thing but there it is. Also, the idea that there is no "best" in almost all things is a sort of jaundiced viewpoint. 

In my view, there is always a better and always a best, given the choices. Perhaps none is "ideal" but then I am not an idealist, I am a pragmatist. The real world never measures up to the idealist, sadly. The pragmatist finds the best choice and goes with it. 

I have done thousands of alcohol washes and I think sampling bees from the brood nest gives a decent measure of mite load. To advocate _not checking_ for mites because there's no 100% accurate way, is contrary to intelligent beekeeping. It encourages let alone, know nothing beekeepers. We have been plagued by varroa mites for 25+ years in this region and it isn't over yet. This ain't Texas.

PLB

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html