> >It appears to me that many of the current MAQS testers spend a lot
> >of time talking  to or receiving help from the supplier, and I suspect this
> >can affect the  usefulness of the results.

>And you're thinking that a tester should not ask the manufacturer the same
>questions that any other beekeeper might ask them?

That is a good question.  Not the part about what I'm thinking, but the implied 
question whether the testers would ask the same questions in the same way 
and get the same answers as the average user -- or understand the answers in the 
same way.

IMO, a tester should have an average beekeeper or group of average beekeepers 
administer the treatment without direct supervision and observe, especially 
if the product is one that seems to need a whole lot of expert help to achieve 
consistent and positive results.  Otherwise, the results merely demonstrate 
what an expert can achieve under optimal conditions, not what the guy on the 
street will see when he gives the product to a his/her semi-literate and non
English-speaking Mexican help to apply at a remote site. 

>For example, I was contacted by a few commercial beekeepers this spring
>about possible problems with MAQS.  So I joined the open dialog between the
>beekeepers and the mfr, and designed my own trial to replicate the
>beekeepers hive setup and conditions, and then additional groups to test the
>mfrs suggested fixes.  I did this with as much consultation with the
>beekeepers as with the manufacturer--so does this invalidate my tests since
>I consulted with the beekeepers?

I have no idea.  You tell me.  

>FWIW, I also funded the trial out of my own pocket, and from generic
>donations from beekeeping groups, in order to ensure that I had no financial
>interest, other than my own, since I'm looking for effective products to use
>in my own operation, and am happy to share my results with other beekeepers,
>who in turn share their results with me.

That is how it should be IMO.

>In most of my tests I purchased the product from normal retail channels at
>my own expense, chose my own method of evaluation, and then analyzed and
>published my results completely independent of the mfr.  

Again, bravo.

>However, since the mfr is wishing to make the product work for beekeepers, 
>I did consult with them in order to pass on my results to other beekeepers on 
>their webpage, which is more efficient than having thousands of beekeepers 
>email me personally!

This part is interesting.  I always get lost in doubt whenever it seems a researcher 
becomes a cheerleader for a product.  Did that happen here?  I have no idea 
because I have not been following your activities and only address you since 
you stepped up in response to the general, non-personal comment I made.  I was
addressing the original poster on the tread.  As far as the 'being in bed' comment, 
I was thinking of the Ontario group which on the surface, seemed to be entirely in 
mfr's pocket.  Maybe not?

>To me it also makes complete sense to ask the mfr about reported problems,
>the results of unpublished new trials, and suggestions as to make the
>product work better, in order to share that info with beekeepers via my
>articles.

Randy, you do good work and I am not picking on you, but would be happy to 
-- if you think I should.  Let me know.

>If you read the ABJ, you will find that I am giving updates each month on
>the results of my ongoing tests, including any problems that I observe, and
>also reporting problems that others are complaining of.  To me, this is a
>simple sharing of information about a new product, and I can't for the world
>understand why you think that a researcher should not contact the mfr.

I don't think I said that, and that is why I quoted myself at the top.

(Apologies to the group for so much quoting inline, but I couldn't think of a 
better way to discuss each point without typing his comments out in full, and 
potentially paraphrasing.) 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm