Barry Birkey wrote:

> A lot of what Allen pointed out is true and I'm in full agreement
> with. The part that bothers me is how are people going to determine
> what that level of success is if they continue to treat the bees
> with chemicals?

If they do this with all of their hives, then they simply can't.  I think
you and I agree on that.

> This will effectively give false conclusions.

Only if they draw conclusions from it.  Some of us have the interest, the
resources, and the risk tolerance to run controlled tests.  Some don't.  As
long as the people who use SMR and chemicals together as a way of being
doubly protected are clear about that then I don't see a problem with it.
Advances in the field will come from those who take the risks.

> The fact that there are outside influences on any test hive should not
> detour the test or it's results as these same influences are there for all
> the hives. After all, these same influences will be there, test
> hive or not,

I agree with that too.  Allen seemed to be saying that since we cannot
control outside influences we cannot do meaningful tests.  (Is that what you
meant to say Allen?)  It seems to me that if in a given yard half the
colonies are run one way and half another way, and if statistically
significant differences are observed in the welfare of the two groups, then
we have learned something.

On the other hand if half the hives are treated for mites, and the other
half are untreated and using SMR queens, and they both fare well, that may
say nothing other than that this beeyard was not hit hard by mites this
year.

Frank.
-----
The very act of seeking sets something in motion to meet us;
something in the universe, or in the unconscious responds as if
to an invitation.  - Jean Shinoda Bolen