>The 10-20 baseline was what I see on your chart--it is not "my number."
Whatever. Why quibble? That was what you wrote. My number was 14.5, with the
qualifications previously mentioned. They come out the same, FAI&P.
> You can't extrapolate from that, since it is suppressed due to your
>obvious accelerated mite drops due to the treatments.
I was assuming (yes assuming) that this number should naturally decline over
time from the data you provided and simply drew a straight line to the current
drop number, although it is not a natural drop at this point and won't be for
a week or more.
> My point is that you can look at your chart, and draw a nearly horizontal line
> through the baseline mite drop between spikes.
Maybe, maybe not. I realise you are a busy man and doctored up the chart for you
with some lines and areas delineated
http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/images/2011/bl10.h7.jpg
>If your treatment actually had an effect (forget your fanciful
>calculations), then that baseline should have clearly dropped down stepwise
>after each treatment, and by the end should have been near zero (not 4,
>since that is not that far from the baseline).
Maybe that is not the only plausible way to think about this, and perhaps it is
not the best since it ignores the ongoing brood emergence during the early part.
I have marked the brood period and the non-brood period clearly, and the arrows
indicate the treatments. The current drop of 4 is still in the accelerated (not natural)
drop period following the the last treatment, and I have been anticipating that the
natural drop will be less than four. I am not at all convinced though that we
will see all zeros every day. From the total drops per hive so far, what would
indicate a good control?
>> >Quod erat demonstrandum.
>Hardly! Latin back to you:
>Cum hoc ergo propter hoc--Correlation does not imply causation!
Some people need more proof. And then there is the question of certainty.
For me, in light of other work and experience, I need less proof than others might.
>Allen, the only reason that I'm belaboring this thread is that recently
>there was a discussion about alternative interpretations of scientific
>studies. I'm simply using your small "study," and the unsupported
>conclusions that you drew from it as an example.
Sure, and I agree. I also don't think that any one study alone proves _anything_,
especialy if stats are used. In fact the stats say so in so many words, but few
listen.
So, as far as I can see, we are in agreement. I'm convinced, and need less effect
and less certainty to deem the treatment successful than you. That's fine. IMO.
As for standing up to the standards we expect of formal planned and published
studies, I certainly don't make any such claims. This is an accidental project,
dreramed up as it progresses. It is what it is.
I still have plenty of reservations and questions -- and I appreciate your
assistance in this -- but I am quite convinced that the oxalic treatment
killed more mites and sooner than I would have seen dead if I let nature take its
course -- unless of course the hives died the way they did last year in which case,
I would have 100.0000 % mite kill. I am attempting to avoid that way of controlling
mites by reducing the populations earlier than nature would -- I hope.
>Medhat and others have clearly demonstrated that *properly applied* oxalic
>vapor can bring mite levels down. But your data set cannot be used to
>support the hypothesis that that is what actually happened in your hives.
That seems to be a matter of opinion, and the project is incomplete.
>This is not a criticism of your study--I found it very interesting to read
>your learning curve about sticky board counts, and to see the spikes
>following oxalic vapor treatment. But that's as far as I think that you
>can legitimately go as far as conclusions, unless you do either a cleanup
>treatment or in-hive alcohol wash and brood sample to confirm the actual
>amount of mites still happily residing in the comfort of your tall, warm,
>styrofoam-insulated varroa hotels.
I'm waiting to see what happens to the natural drops after this is all over
in another week or two..
Just to reiterate:
I did not expect high efficacy in the treatments done during the brood period,
although I did compare the response to that of broodless hives as I went
along. The initial treatments were done earlier than optimal to try
to knock down as many varroa as possible while waiting for the brood to
clear out and to hold the mite populations back. That is all they accomp-
lished -- IMO
I see quite different response in the two treatments done after the brood
rearing stopped, but the second is not completely played out. (I used a
different application system on these as well, and that confounds things).
The last two treatments are intended to provide control fore next season,
and the jury is still out as far as I am concerned, but the trend is in the
right direction.
I'm not sure that some have grasped that point. It is illustrated more clearly
at http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/images/2011/bl10.h7.jpg
***********************************************
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
|
