A Andrew Dewey snip followed by > my comment.... 
Some controversy exists over how new beekeepers might deal with Varroa.

I have taught, as do others, that testing both before and after 
treatment should be done.

>At the TAMU bee lab I do exactly what you suggest above.  For my own bees (which are basically no treatment) I monitor/test for varroa on a very casual bases, but any information generally leads to no action.  As far as a combination the treated and non treated group does provide others with resources* to do research on various question related to varroa and the products used (current and past)* to combat varroa.

>There are + and - with either approach. As far as I can tell all the treatments may kill a perfectly good hive (or at least result in the queen being replace... at the wrong time of season a dead queen= a dead hive).  Monitoring on the other had has a history (defined by known research) that all the forms of testing has a large error term with may well lead to treating when you don't need to or not treating when you do.

>IMHO if treating by the calendar is an excuse for folks not leaning to monitor/test for varroa then the negative of this strategy definitely outweighs the potential positives.

*I have come to believe (and yes supported by some research that has been done here at the TAMU lab) the some of the treatment may well be almost as bad as varroa but with a significant time lagged effect.... that is... you may not pay now but you will definitely pay later.

Gene in Central Texas...  

             ***********************************************
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