> Does anyone have any thoughts or recommendations for this strategy?

It is an interesting idea, of course. In fact, I have had similar notions that the biggest and best colonies are the ones that are most likely to succumb to varroa mites and collapse. In the study they compared unmanaged colonies to colonies that were supered normally, but not controlled for varroa. 

They should have included a set where mites were controlled. Sure, if you don't control mites, the colonies that stay strong and don't swarm are more susceptible to mite buildup than ones that never build up or swarm themselves to nothing. The proposal that one medium super per colony is an adequate return from each colony per season is a huge leap backward. 

I recently viewed a series of videos on skep beekeeping and what is being described is very similar. The colonies were encouraged to swarm; the swarms were captured and sold. The main source of income became selling bees rather than producing a decent amount of honey per colony. The operation had hundreds of skeps so obviously, a large amount of honey was made also. I would like to know if this skep management system also controls varroa. I have never heard anything along those lines. 

For the average beekeeper who expects to get 150 to 200 pounds of honey from a good colony, the alternative would be to constantly split the hives, and try to run about ten times as many colonies. One could do it, of course, if the only management was to watch their strength and split them as soon as they covered eight frames. Personally, I still see the goal as strong healthy colonies, because they are better for just about everything except keeping varroa in check.

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