Rip said:
To my knowledge the simplest and most effective way to get "even"
populations of "whatever" in controlled research hives is to start with a
"super package"

My method  of choice. I would take the packages from hives with a known
varroa load and mix.

There is no perfect method but the above is the best for the least amount of
trouble.

Others take a varroa free package and add the varroa in frames of brood
which have about the same amount of varroa load. (varroa
in cells per area of brood).

There is no way to say OA cleared all the hives of varroa making all hives
equal especially *if* all hives had sealed brood>.

The chalkbrood problem (depending on level) compromised the test as would
foulbrood or any other disease problem.

If the test did show small cell superior to large cell then a repeat test
should show similar results.

I do not call the Norway tests not valid but only point out what the
research community would say. Very primitive.

I have ran many many similar tests on hives. I have published none as I know
what researchers think of primitive tests. I write for both Bee Culture &
the American Bee Journal and I speak from experience of getting articles
published.

Both editors have bent the long established rules of peer review. I agree
with their decision. My friend Jim Fischer will no doubt post why all
articles like the Norway article need peer review. I welcome his post as
will show the other side of the coin!

Although long time friends our opinions differ on certain subjects!

 Both Dee Lusby's Bee Culture articles had to be peer reviewed before
publication. To tell a peer reviewed article you will see others names
beside the authors.

I would rather see an article like the Norway article as written.

Most researchers (in my opinion) would have left the article intact under
peer review but added in the article the things I have pointed out (perhaps
more or perhaps less).

I would like to publish a few of my own primitive test results but know I
would rather wait to provide testing the research community would not find
fault with.

I commend both Kim Flottum & Joe Graham for running articles not peer
*butchered * (has happened)
for their readers!
What I mean is I do not mind the researchers comments but object to the
researcher rewriting the article to reflect their  views.

 I believe I am on friendly enough terms with Dee Lusby to say she was not
pleased with her peer review for the Bee Culture articles (she has told me
and others.)

 Back then if you were not a researcher and only beekeepers like Dee & I
articles like hers and the Norway article would need peer review to be
published. Glad we have moved forward!

Sincerely,
Bob Harrison

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---