> I am aware of what you have posted here about your plans for SMR. I have not > seen anywhere an indication that you will keep some of your SMR stock > completely off any chemical to see what the true survivor rate is. Exactly > how does one measure the "success" of SMR if they are still using chemicals? The problem with any such tests is that what is happening in test hives can be affected by what is happening in the surrounding area. Varroa from collapsing hives can overwhelm a hive that is not generating varroa on its own. AFB from a neighbourhood can get into a hive that has no history of AFB. SHB can attack a hive that has not generated AHB... The success of a technique does not have to be absolute to be considered worthwhile. If SMR only reduces the need for treatment by half, it will still be a success. Of course we all would like to have 100% freedom from chemical treatment, but I doubt that will happen in a short term except in isolated cases. We are stuck with IPM. We have to watch pest and disease levels and respond if we see economic levels or suffer the consequences. Breeding and management can reduce the need for chemical intervention, but as bob has said, if he detects that he is going to lose his bees, he is going to intervene. Fair enough. IMO. That does not mean he cannot observe reduced chemical dependence and attribute that to SMR. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/