Hello James and All,

James wrote:
Without reinfestation, an autumn
> figure of 200 would not need treatment in the following year.
(according to the varroa calculator)

If you are saying a sticky board reading of 200 varroa in September does not
need treatment I see this figure way to high for an area with severe winter.
I have heard figures as high as 160 and feel 160 might be too high for an
area in which the bees are confined for a long over winter period.

I appriciate the amount of work Steve put in his calculator. In my opinion
there is simply to many varibles between each hive for a one method fits
all. The calculator is a place for the novice to start and learn from. Steve
based his calculator on what he thinks he saw from his research in his part
of the world .

His findings *will not * work in mine. I hate to say these thinks but you
and I have discussed many beekeeping issues  before and you know which
buttons to push James to get a response.

Thanks to Steve for his work on the varroa calculator. Another beekeeping
tool but only as good as the person using the tool.

James wrote:
 We do have the problem that if we treat too soon, we may not see
> the bees sudden response to high levels by "chewing out" larvae and
> grooming off the adults.

As I said in a post on Bee-L a couple years ago about this phenonomon that
most hives will "chew out" larvae and groom to one degree or another BUT
only (in my opinion) when the varroa load really gets climbing. Unlike some
of my fellow beekeepers and researchers I have never seen this phenonomon as
the answer for varroa. Certainly a important trait worth selecting for
(breeder queen) in Dee Lusbys type of non chemical type of beekeeping.

Surviving varroa with out chemical treatments of any kind is like organic
gardning. A few gardners are successful if they stay on top of things and
get lucky but most gardners find the use of a chemical every once in a while
makes life easier.


> In any case, the specific threshold for a colony will depend on its
> resistance to viruses.

We have known about secondary infections from the start with varroa. No one
disputs secondary infections. Now that Bailey, Carrick and others have
definned the problem lets step ahead to  solutions. Solving the virus
problem is complicated (expensive and time consumming). Agreed?

Given that substances such as thymol help the
> bees immune system perhaps this allows a higher threshold?

I noticed you did not say *might*.  Any proof from research Thymol is a help
for the tiny bees delicate immune system or another theory from *across the
pond* .

> I am lurching towards an IPM system with selection and breeding from
> bees that snip mite legs.

James you are not *lurching* but in my opinion moving forward steadily. Our
friend Murray (lurker lately) is probabbly better to guide you than me for
your area of the world.  I use chemicals when I see no other way. I would
love to get off the chemical treadmill but for now I see no other way. Maybe
you, Dee and others will find the solution .

James wrote:
 I left 4 colonies untreated last winter.

Most hives will survive two years *if* the intitial varroa load is not too
high.


James wrote:
> from the centre of the brood nest showed 1 bee with deformed wings and a
> dozen or so smaller, grey looking, *very* slow moving bees

Using *leave alone* methods I always find a few bees with k wings.

< strength of the  colonies is enormous.

Varroa always breaks threshold first on  your strongest hives  because of
the brood rearing factor (which is impossible at present to factor in  with
the varroa calculator).

Sincerely,
Bob Harrison