>> >There is no direct relationship between mite levels and *certainty* of 
>> >collapse

>Dr Frank Eischen recently presented data that suggest that the
>relationship is indeed pretty danged strong, at least for bees heading
>toward almonds, and for untreated bees in the Coordinated Action Project
>apiaries.

Strong and direct are not the same, and there is no certainty.  That is what 
is interesting about this phenomenon, and what creates false confidence.

That is why the rest of the quote which was clipped out of context says:

"but there seems to be a direct relationship, or possibly a log 
relationship, between peak mite levels during a season and *probability* of 
collapse in subsequent months". (emphasis added to each quote)

Some things are simple direct cause and effect. (Pull the pin, count, throw, 
the grenade eplodes.)

Others (like this) have component of chance added in so that even though 
the odds get much worse in a fashion which is seemingly geometric over 
some range as the mite loads increase, the is no *certainty* of breakdown 
at some arbitrary number or time.

The phenomenon defies definition by a simple formula.  That is why I still 
hear educated people speculating that there are safe thresholds higher 
than 3 to 5%.

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