Interesting to see how others interpret this data : )  I find some of the
responses to be pretty flimsy.

First, since the data was collected in exactly the same way each year
(other than the colony count post 1985), can any of you please explain to
me why it would not be valid to look for trends?  I also fill out the
survey questionaires, and realize that they are not perfect, but that
doesn't mean that the data cannot be interpreted.

My point is that if the garbage in is COLLECTED CONSISTENTLY, then it can
be interpreted meaningfully.

>This is exactly the point: I don't doubt the yield, but the method for
counting hives. At one point in the 1980s they revised the method, at which
point the colony count fell by one million. Partly this was because they
realized migratory hives had been counted more than once, and partly
because they disallowed holdings of 5 or less. If the number of colonies is
inaccurate then all the rest is inaccurate. GIGO.

And Pete, again I question your reasoning.  I already stated that I am
aware that there was a change in 1986.  But that wouldn't make any
difference, since both the honey numbers and colony count were for the same
hives, so the per-hive yield figure wouldn't change.

Can everyone just slow down a moment before you hit "send," and think about
the implications of this chart?

-- 
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