-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Dick
.. might I add here that, regardless of which hypothesis is preferable, this
guideline gives no guarantee that the one chosen by the rule -- or either
one for that matter -- will prove to be true.
=====

How true.  However, the more simple the hypothesis, usually the easier it is
to disprove it. For example, I might hypothesize that Aliens are traveling
over Dee's bees, using a special type of space ship, on a regular basis and
that the energy from the anti-gravity motors kills 100% of the mites each
time (missing only those out in the field, providing a vector for
reinfestation).  Of course, my hypothesis is much more complex than most of
the others postulated (and rather far-fetched), but just as difficult to
disprove as the native bee theory (there being no positive evidence for
either one).

Just as, proving that 4.9 makes THE difference in Dee's bees would be a
simple matter of taking her now well-established hives, splitting them into
groups in two (or more) apiaries (the more used, the better the comparison)
and shaking them onto "large" (standard 5.2) foundation (which Dee would
have to press herself, to make the comparison valid).  Then, leave the bees
to their own devices, no treatments, and working them as she normally does.
After 2 or 3 years (or less, if the large cell bees all die), compare both
survivability and production.  Of course, to meet the standards of
publication, there would be a little more work involved, since one would
have to have a way of ensuring that the starting mite population and
genetics were comparable, as well as determining if a swarm has taken over a
dead colony. Measuring the actual mite population at the end should be
unnecessary, since it is "commonly known" that colonies won't survive two
years untreated (and the survivability is what is being tested for,
regardless of mite load).  The more sites used, of course, the better the
results as far as reliability (and the more risk and work for Dee).

Others could, of course, do the research, but that would normally involve
bringing in other variables (the climate, the local flora, different feral
populations, possibility that the foundation wax itself makes a difference
(not size, but wax source), inability of others to duplicate Dee's touch
with introducing queens, selecting for her genetics, etc....).  And
regardless of who was involved, not a nice quick project, with results at
the end of the grant year, to be published in time for the next application
(so funding could be a problem, not just for the lack of commercial
exploitation of the results).

One of the main problems most have with those that are trying out 4.9
foundation and their enthusiasm for their perceived success (or even lack of
the same), is the lack of any controlled studies that support their
hypothesis (let alone prove them).  More likely, the genetics that Dee has
bred for (and the foundation size may have aided in that or her techniques
of selection may have been the deciding factor) are the real reason for her
success. Which is a great barrier to all the others trying to emulate her,
unless their hives (and usually just a few hives) happen to have the same
genetics to draw from (not likely outside of the particular region).  Of
course, if Dee's bees live in harmony with mites, produce as well (or
pollinate as well, for those that do not care about honey production) and do
not pose a great threat to other bee populations, then an obvious "solution"
(although not likely the only solution) to the mite threat in the US would
be for her to simply start selling her queens and packages nationwide,
spreading that immunity through the entire country.  Of course, if the
capensis-like traits she has selected for not only mean that bees from her
line would wipe out the other lines in the US, but are also not good
producers (or pollinators or able to over winter in the north, etc...), that
would be a disastrous occurrence (but, what is to stop that from happening,
other than her own decisions?).

Karen Oland