> This is a perfect example of how 
> to misread survey results.

No one said correlation was causation, but with large "n"s, as in these
studies, trends tend to emerge.

When a trend does not emerge, and the data appears to contradict itself, the
controlling factor clearly is one not measured.  Given that weather has more
impact on bees than the efforts of the beekeeper in general, it seems
reasonable to think that sorting the responses by USDA zone might reveal
something useful. 
 
> In other words, in order to pollinate almonds 
> you have to have consistently good bees, while 
> those who don't pollinate don't need to maintain 
> their hives in good condition at all. So many of 
> them don't -- or can't.

If "pollinating almonds" was the differentiator, rather than weather, then
one would expect a more consistent set of year-to-year results, as the
percentage of almond-pollinating hives reported on would continue to be a
significant percentage of the total reports in any year.  The lack of any
consistency from year to year means that the survey does not seem to uncover
"beekeeper skill/effort" as a significant factor (assuming that pollinating
almonds implies more skill/effort). 

1)  The authors of the report on the survey certainly did not "misread"
their own survey.

2)  The survey tends to support the seemingly contradictory findings of what
controlled studies have been done, including those cited in the post.  In
short, there does not seem to be a proven consistent advantage to any
feeding method.

 3)  We've been over "surveys" before, specifically those from BIP.  The
critiques of "surveys" here on Bee-L correlate strongly to a lack of any
effort to understand the sophisticated statistical methods that can be used
in survey analysis.

4)  The only fault I could find in the survey would be that hobby vs
for-profit beekeepers are not segmented, as the two approaches have less and
less to do with each other these days. 

5)  The controlled studies also did not point to any clear "winner" in terms
of winter feed, but they were ignored in the haste to jump on the BIP survey
as "misinterpreted".

So, anyone with a view of the surveys more than one sigma away from "valid"
is encouraged to define their views, and to suggest how the data set might
be better sliced and diced.  Please include a zip code for spatial
correlation.  :)

	

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