>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