>Using a relatively small sample that does not contain any catastrophic

> losses can lead to valid (for the sample), but unrepresentative (for the
> whole) conclusions.


It appears that you may have missed the point of me posting the data.  I
was not trying to relate it to winter losses of Canadian beekeepers nor
U.S. hobby beekeepers.  This was only in relationship to
commercially-managed colonies going to almond pollination.  It is for those
colonies that most of the hoopla was about this spring.

Most commercial operations going to almonds winter their bees either in
relatively mild winter areas in California, Texas, or Florida, or in potato
sheds. It is only for such colonies that this data would apply.

The data is hardly anecdotal--it was carefully collected at three or more
time points over the course of the winter.  This is a tedious process, and
is far more reliable than "data" based upon beekeepers estimations or
memories.

I was not in any way trying to extrapolate it to the entire universe--I
posted it merely as scientifically-gathered information from a number of
well-run commercial operations who made the effort to control some of the
variables that are associated with catastrophic winter losses..  I have
previously discussed or posted data regarding catastrophic losses
experienced under controlled conditions.  Perhaps I made the mistake of
thinking that some might actually be interested in the potential to learn
from such data...
-- 
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