Paul
Just my view from reading the first post that started the topic.  It may be semantics but the post was not how to come up with a research plan to get a better be but was more, what type of proof is required for some one who says they are treatment free and having success.  As big an arguement could be had in putting a label to what is considered success as is put to what is treatment free.  What would you consider as successful bee keeping and would that be the same as the guy down the street?  So if we switched the discussion from what is treatment free and discussed, what is success, we would be having this same discussion of what proof would be required for such a claim.

So in the end, the topic was how much merit to give to a claim that seemed extra ordinary and not how to run an experiment.  It might take an experiment to prove a claim and so peter in the first post put examples of how to look at extra ordinary claims.  One example went like, to disbelieve this is happening is even more extra ordinary then believing it is happening.

Since the example came up in the first thread that "honey bees living with out treatments, many people claim to have them"  It was more wether to believe they have them as claimed then how do they get them.

So If I am managing my hives like all hives have to be managed with out treatment and my bees are living, how do I prove that.  We can't make new rules that say the way I am managing bees makes it untrue that I am keeping bees that are living with out treatment when the whole goal is to have bees we can manage with out treatment.

The claim on the other hand and whether it is extraordinary and just a story or worth a furthur look is more like the perminski forrest where the claim was no longer so outlandish to believe and became more a it would be more outlandish to believe that something was not going on and so was worth looking at.

All those small guys keeping bees that live and are not treating but may be managing is not automatically an extra ordinary claim.  

And they know what they are doing and what is happenning regaurdless of what anyone else believes.  

Now the proof that the bee they are working with and how well it does may take the sorta experment designed along the avenue you mention.

One other thing, It seems all bees propogate and also die no matter how they are handled and bee keeping seems to be based more on percent of hives that died then one hive living forever.  So, success is still going to be measured from what you have left year to year to work with and what those that are left will do for you.  Lastly success will be measured on how much labor and money which ever route you take gives compared to other routes you could take and which might help a bit with bee evolution to boot.  Randy is taking a soft bond and beeweever seemed to take a hard bond approch and so trying to break it down that there is only one way that will work or move you a little closer to the goal is not right.  A better view may be to reconize the good and bad of each way and know that life is a compermize.  So you may have it right when it comes to measuring results but have it wrong when it comes to making advancements.

I am not going to let my hive swarm even if it means I need to split but am going to consider myself treatment free till my bees die like you think they will.  I don't even contest that they might die eventually but they haven't yet and untill they do, my level of belief is that I am treatment free even if my bees are not measured to be so.  Put the sience hat on and decide if it is an extra ordinary claim.  I am not the only one and some lose every hive they have and some do pretty good.  Is that an extra ordinary claim.  The first post of this thread give three examples of how to look at those claims.

I don't go as far as to say sugar is a drug though.

As a side note though, I have been reading alot and you see those who cull the drone brood and it helps with the mites but then you see another study (from the usda I think) that says the hives that did the best were also the ones that had the most drone brood in them.  I myself so far except for splits  to stop swarms or just losing swarms (which most of which I hived) don't really do anything.  I do my inspections, look at brood patterns, try and watch the stores and collect the honey and wait for dead outs to do autopsies on.  I don't cull drone brood or take mite counts or cage queens.  I would do those things if I start losing hives.  I will treat if I start losing hives, I will change if I can never get any honey or have to feed too much sugar water.  I don't have those 40 years to fall back on or enough years to even see how productive my bees will be.  I do know that they are alive and I have not treated and have tried to do the things that will give me a chance at getting some production with out losing my bees to the trees.  I am treatment free till my bees all die or I change.  That is my extra ordinary claim.  I have not been willing to make any claim that my bees are productive cause even I don't have proof one way or the other on that and making any claim there would be extra ordinary even to me.  

I will say that right now, I am not managing my hives for mites, I am managing them for small increase and honey production.
Cheers
gww
Cheers
gww

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