Table II.

Descriptive statistics on Varroa management practices of 15 beekeepers owning 1824 colonies in southwestern Quebec, Canada in 2017.

Varroa management practices	Beekeepers		Colonies owned by beekeepersa
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Screening for Varroab
Natural mite fall	4	28.6	115	6.3
Total mite fall (after application of acaricide)	3	20.0	26	1.4
Alcohol wash	3	20.0	1306	71.6
Uncapping of drone cells	6	40.0	513	28.1
Visual identification on adult bees	10	66.7	553	30.3
At least one of the above	14	93.3	1819	99.7
Biomechanical control of Varroab
Mesh floor in hive	8	53.3	321	17.6
Destruction of drone cells naturally built in the hive	3	20.0	27	1.5
Brood trapping (green comb frame)	1	6.7	17	0.9
Other method	2	13.3	142	7.8
At least one of the above	10	66.7	331	18.2
Chemical control of Varroa in springb,c
Amitraz (Apivar)	2	13.3	1032	56.6
Flash treatment (formic acid)	2	13.3	95	5.2
At least one of the above	3	20.0	1087	59.6
Chemical control of Varroa in fallb,c
Amitraz (Apivar)	5	33.3	442	24.2
Thymol (Thymovar)	3	20.0	1207	66.2
Flash treatment (formic acid)	6	40.0	433	23.7
Mite Away/MAQS (formic acid)	3	20.0	30	1.6
Oxalic acid	2	13.3	135	7.4
At least one of the above	15	100.0	1850	101.4d

^aOnly the exact number of colonies concerned was asked about chemical control of Varroa. For the other questions, this table depicts the total number of colonies in the study area owned by beekeepers who reported the use of each specific practice. This does not necessarily represent the number of colonies in which the practice was applied.

^bNon-mutually exclusive categories.

^cNo beekeepers used tau-fluvalinate (Apistan), coumaphos (CheckMite +), or pads for absorbing formic acid (Mite Wipes).

^dSome of the treated colonies were lost before the count of total colonies in fall, hence the smaller denominator.