> It builds on two assumptions: 
> that by culling 30% your losses will be 10%, 
> and that by culling 10% your losses will 
> be reduced to 10%; that is a non sequitur.

But it is reasonable to say that if one combines and culls, one will lower
the winter loss rate by some fraction, no matter how mild the winter.

> which is better -- the old way or the new way?

For US bee operations of sufficient minimum size, this document answers the
question succinctly, and provides us with an even "newer" new way:

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_Federal_Notices/elapandlfp_sure_09_11_2
009.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/n3ncjmm

"Payments for honeybee colony or honeybee hive losses will be based on 60
percent of the producer's actual replacement cost for honeybee colonies or
honeybee hives that were lost due to an eligible adverse weather or eligible
loss condition."

So, the classic "reasonable person" from our economics textbooks would cull
or combine NONE of his colonies in fall, unless his operation is in such
poor shape that he stands to lose more than $200,000 worth of bees, as the
ELAP program has a cap.  

Sometimes "best practices" have nothing to do with the welfare of the bees
themselves, which bothers the heck out of me.  But, note well that the magic
number is neither 10% or 30%, it is 60%.

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