> I might hypothesize that Aliens are traveling
> over Dee's bees, using a special type of space ship, on a regular
basis...

I wasn't going to mention this, but I actually did see aliens near Lusbys'
beehives.  However, these aliens weren't in a space ship.  They were hiking
the miles north to their (illegal) jobs in the USA.  They hid when they saw
us -- at least as much as a full-grown humanoid biped can hide behind a
four inch-wide cactus.  I doubt that they had much effect on the mites, but
you never can tell.

> Just as, proving that 4.9 makes THE difference in Dee's bees would be a
> simple matter of taking her now well-established hives, splitting them
into
> groups in two (or more) apiaries (the more used, the better the
comparison)
> and shaking them onto "large" (standard 5.2) foundation (which Dee would
> have to press herself, to make the comparison valid)...

Dee and I argued about this probably more than anything.  She just says,
"No".  She says there is no point in putting the bees through it.

Although I believe in the need for controlled experiments, I can see her
point.  What they are doing works and she doesn't feel a need to do things
anybody's way but her own.  She is sharing the methods and stock and anyone
who cares to can do controlled experiments on their own time.

Frankly, I have to admit that admire that attitude.  She knows what she
wants to know, and figures the proof is someone else's problem.  And, you
are very right, the proof could be very time-consuming and expensive.
Meantime people are following her ideas and they will either succeed or
fail.  If enough succeed for long enough, the demand for proof will fall
off.  If not, the idea will just go away over time.

Although we are all brought up on the scientific method and most of us
accept its primacy without question, it is not the only way to discover
truth, and not always the most practical.  Most of our learning is not
particularly scientific and we all seem to manage somehow.

> One of the main problems most have with those that are trying out 4.9
> foundation and their enthusiasm for their perceived success (or even lack
of
> the same), is the lack of any controlled studies that support their
> hypothesis (let alone prove them).

I share this concern, yet I must confess that am about to join that unruly,
unwashed mass of backyard tinkerers.  I have some 4.9 and frankly, I have
no intention of doing anything even remotely scientific with it.  I'm just
going to keep an eye out for some of the little grey bees I have seen in my
outfit and when I find one of those hives, I will seize it and take it home
where I will shake a good number of its bees into a hive body with nothing
but 4.9 foundation (several kinds).  I'll then watch and see what happens.
If they draw it out at all well, I will have to get serious about revising
a lot of my beliefs.

> Of course, if the
> capensis-like traits she has selected for not only mean that bees from
her
> line would wipe out the other lines in the US, but are also not good
> producers (or pollinators or able to over winter in the north, etc...),
that
> would be a disastrous occurrence (but, what is to stop that from
happening,
> other than her own decisions?).

That's what we have all been wondering, but since Lusbys bees are just
selected and tuned versions of the common feral stock from around their
neighbourhood, then it seems that this whole thing is a lot bigger than
Lusbys.  They have just decide to go with it rather than fight it.

Again, the main thing Lusbys are doing differently from their neighbours is
using the smaller foundation, so that seems to be the logical thing to
suspect as a cause of their apparent success.

allen
http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/