Allen Dick wrote:

> What I think I was saying is that there are always outside influences and in
> some cases they may be sufficiently severe that the test cannot be finished
> without helping the bees survive.  Dead bees don't provide any solutions or any
> promise.  Bees that survive with minimal help do.  Helping the bees survive does
> not necessarily nullify the test.

The truth is, both Bob's trial of SMR bees and Barry's trial of 4.9
foundation are not true trials of either, mainly because of the non
control of variables in the trial, one of my continued concerns with
some varroa controls touted on this list. Their results will be
interesting, but not conclusive. They will be shown to work or not work
under the conditions they have in their apiaries, but not necessarily
anywhere else.

A true trial of either SMR or 4.9 would require controls; a reduction of
all variables to a manageable number; an introduced mite load or, at a
minimum, a uniform, existing mite load; a method of testing for
efficacy;  and reproducibility by others. I am sure I am missing even
more that should be included.

So far, what I have seen concerning SMR leads me to judge its results as
more scientifically based than 4.9, but that is not for lack of trying
to get the scientific community to trial 4.9.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, ME