> Allen seemed to be saying that since we cannot
> control outside influences we cannot do meaningful tests.  (Is that what you
> meant to say Allen?)

No that is not what I was saying, but it may be true in specific cases.  I don't
know.  It depends on how the outside influences are distributed for one thing.
For another it depends if we can mitigate the effects on the bees and if we can
filter out the effects on the data.

What I think I was saying is that there are always outside influences and in
some cases they may be sufficiently severe that the test cannot be finished
without helping the bees survive.  Dead bees don't provide any solutions or any
promise.  Bees that survive with minimal help do.  Helping the bees survive does
not necessarily nullify the test.

An important point that many do not acknowledge is that it *is* possible to
treat bees with chemicals -- for whatever reason -- and still meaningfully
measure any resistance they may have.  When putting on Apistan(r) or whatever,
shoving in a sticky board at the same time will show which hives have fewer
mites -- or none.  Those hives are the ones -- IMO -- that stand the best chance
of surviving without treatment in the future.

FWIW, I have no doubt that *if* SMR does, in fact, work wonderfully well, there
will still be places and situations where it will not.  The seasons and amount
of drone rearing varies widely from region to region -- as do many other
factors.

If there is only one thing that BEE-L has taught me it is this: there are very
few universal truths when it comes to honey bees.

Winnie the Pooh was right.

allen
http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/