>
> >I believe that if one looks at the body of evidence from the accumulated
> data of the whole, the results are obvious. To deny it, in my opinion, is
> to embrace an unreasonably high degree of ugly coincidence.


Well spoken, Dan.
When one combines the findings of all the studies (plus several more not
mentioned by Dan), they fill in the deficiencies of the others.  For
example, Berry's three trials did not cover the Sept/Oct broodnest
cleansing of mites of which Dee speaks.  But that deficiency is addressed
by Seeley's trial.

In my own long-term "informal trials" of Honey Super Cell, there appeared
to be some benefit in colony survival, but any such benefit was outweighed
by the negative aspects of those combs involved with normal colony
management operations.

I personally have no experience with small cell on wax foundation, but have
no reason to not believe the hard data collected by objective researchers
who would have gladly adopted small cell as a mite management tool had it
proven out in their trials.

To any objective observer, the burden of proof would now shift back to
those still supporting the hypothesis.


-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
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