Sender: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:01:14 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<p05100300b9c49eb79f14@[128.253.49.180]> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> From:Peter Borst
> In order to study supersedure, one would have to requeen all hives
> with marked queens, or at least mark every queen early in the season.
> Then these queens would have to be monitored during the season. This
> would establish a baseline supersedure rate. Next, the
> "anti-supersedure" study would be undertaken, -- say: change the
> frame orientation. This would be done on half the hives. Half would
> have to be managed in the regular way. Then, if the rate of
> supersedure departed from the previous year in the test hives but not
> in the control hives, you could say you were on to something.
Peter,
Would you not need two groups that were re-arranged? One into the perfect
Housel (since we can presume few of your control hives start that way;
unless you re-arranged them, the odds are greatly against it) and the second
group into some other configuration that is not the perfect housel, but is
re-arranged. Otherwise, your study may only gauge the difference between
those rearranged and those not, rather than Housel versus non-Housel.
Karen
|
|
|