>
> >It appears to me that many of the current MAQS testers spend a lot
> of time talking  to or receiving help from the supplier, and I suspect this
> can affect the
> usefulness of the results.


And you're thinking that a tester should not ask the manufacturer the same
questions that any other beekeeper might ask them?

For example, I was contacted by a few commercial beekeepers this spring
about possible problems with MAQS.  So I joined the open dialog between the
beekeepers and the mfr, and designed my own trial to replicate the
beekeepers hive setup and conditions, and then additional groups to test the
mfrs suggested fixes.  I did this with as much consultation with the
beekeepers as with the manufacturer--so does this invalidate my tests since
I consulted with the beekeepers?

FWIW, I also funded the trial out of my own pocket, and from generic
donations from beekeeping groups, in order to ensure that I had no financial
interest, other than my own, since I'm looking for effective products to use
in my own operation, and am happy to share my results with other beekeepers,
who in turn share their results with me.

In most of my tests I purchased the product from normal retail channels at
my own expense, chose my own method of evaluation, and then analyzed and
published my results completely independent of the mfr.  However, since the
mfr is wishing to make the product work for beekeepers, I did consult with
them in order to pass on my results to other beekeepers on their webpage,
which is more efficient than having thousands of beekeepers email me
personally!

To me it also makes complete sense to ask the mfr about reported problems,
the results of unpublished new trials, and suggestions as to make the
product work better, in order to share that info with beekeepers via my
articles.

If you read the ABJ, you will find that I am giving updates each month on
the results of my ongoing tests, including any problems that I observe, and
also reporting problems that others are complaining of.  To me, this is a
simple sharing of information about a new product, and I can't for the world
understand why you think that a researcher should not contact the mfr.

Randy Oliver

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