My main concern about these studies is they necessarily examine average 
or typical performance in controlled situations.

I always wonder how the anomalies are treated.  It seems to me that 
outliers and exceptions are often discarded in studies as they 
complicate things for the researchers and muddy the water.  Some 
researchers are more honest than others and provide their complete data 
so that others can cut and slice it differently. Others just seem to 
say, "you don't need to see the data.  Trust us, and trust that we did 
not cherry-pick the data, and that we know how to use our stats 
program.  You only need the results".

Although the average performance is important to beekeepers, the 
anomalies are of equal interest, as anomalies provide a great deal of 
extra work and worry in a commercial operation -- and can affect profits 
very adversely, even if the average performance is fine.

These studies typically are run for short periods in controlled 
conditions since a real world test quickly becomes too complex, with 
hives dying, hives requeening, winter loss, swarming, splitting, lost 
data due to yard access problems, student screw-ups, etc.

Beekeepers live in the real world and although we appreciate the 
insights and opinions of researchers, we are very aware that -- although 
the studies may be replicated by other similar studies -- they are often 
not replicated in real world experience.

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