> Sure seems to me that if a statistican was actually looking at this he
> would
> see no differences within any sort of reasonable confidence.   Very curious
> as to how they could "account" for differences in country and forage base
> vs
> weather.  Any serious beek knows 5 miles can be whole different world in
> hive development.


The old adage- "There are lies. damn lies and statistics" is humorous,
because, like all good humor, it has the germ of truth.

Allan Dick, way back when, stated the obvious when any trial like this one
was posted- did they control the variables? When you have to explain your
findings by differentiating them statistically from the noise (error bars)
you are on shaky ground because the lack of control of the variables
overrides any findings unless they are consistent and obvious, neither one
of which fits here.

Charlie noted one problem with the test, but the most obvious was the bees
health difference between different locations. Of all the variables, that
is key. Any results are suspect if you start with a mixed bag of healthy to
Varroa and nosema infested bees. That is the most important variable to
control. It is obvious it was not.

The key finding in all this morass is the inconsistency of the results of
the neonic impact in the various locations. That is the major tell from
this since the neonics should have affected the bees in a consistent manner
no matter where they might be located.

But that is the same issue that comes up all the time on this list. If they
are so bad, then what about what is happening in Canada (17 million acres!)
and the US where bees pollinating neonic crops for more than ten years show
no major issues? I continue to marvel that those opposed to the neonics do
not go to the Canola fields and look at the before and after of the bees
pollinating those fields and show the impact of the neonics.

If neonics were banned tomorrow, as a beekeeper it would not bother me at
all, but outside that, I would be concerned for the farmer's health. The
alternatives are worse.

But, ironically, I would hate to have it happen since, even though the
neonics are behaving like any pesticide in that you have to sort out
application methods that work best and do the least harm (i.e. seed treated
vs drench), they have also been the prime mover in an explosion of bee
related research. Best thing to happen for us in years. So if they are
banned, all the research will go dark because the bees will be saved and we
can look for the next tizzy issue. (Tizzy, as in "get your pants in a
tizzy".)

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

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