> The goal is not to get an exact count of mites in
> the colony, rather an indication of the degree of mites' presence.
>
> Aaron Morris - still thinking math rules!

That's the truth.  I've been studying statistics lately and what the math
teaches is this:

1.) Unless you sample 100% of the bees and brood in the hive(s) or unless the
incidence of what you are looking for is very high, there is a significant
chance that conclusions you make from your sample may be very wrong.

I.e..  If you have lots of mites, a small sample is going to tell you much more,
with greater certainty, than if you have very few mites or only one mite in the
hive(s).

2.) Increasing the sample size a little makes a big difference in certainty of
results.

That is the problem with detecting and controlling the mite when it enters a new
country as it is now in New Zealand.

Because the incidence is so low and unevenly distributed in most hives at the
beginning, sampling techniques have a high degree of uncertainty compared to
places where levels are higher and more evenly distributed.

Unfortunately their goal in NZ is to have 100% certainty of 0% infestation.
That is simply mathematically impossible, so I predict a high certainty of an
(expensive) failure.

allen
---
A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/
Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb,
unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving
bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served...