Barry Birkey said:

> Are you planning to give us your take
> on a recent study, as I had asked?

> http://www.bee-l.com/biobeefiles/pav/scstudy.htm

I wish I could, but what is there appears to be a news
summary about a study, rather than the actual published
paper.  One can't tell much unless one reads the actual paper.

I'm not even sure that I am even permitted to comment on what
little is said on the web page, since it says both:

  "(C) 2001-2002 Beesource.Com/Unauthorized reproduction
   forbidden by Federal Copyright Law."

and

  "By Michelle Taylor, Hortresearch"

...so I'm not sure if I have the "right" to cut and paste a few
snippets to contrast what is said versus what I'd expect
to read about methodology in such a report, and I'm not sure
who I should ask for permission.

But it does seem clear that:

1)  A citation to the complete published paper would be nice,
    if a paper was ever published anywhere as a result of this
    work.

2)  Someone needs to clear up the apparent conflict between
     the "copyright" claimed by the website and "authorship",
     since, by definition, the author of a paper or news report
     has the only valid copyright on a work, unless such rights
     were granted to the journal or news outlet in which it was
     published.

3)  If this document WAS the extent of the actual "paper",
     it is simply "unpublishable work", and does not qualify
     as anything more than "another opinion".  Perhaps if
     it were reworked, and more detail was added...

4)  10 colonies is simply not enough "test subjects" to yield
     data that can be subjected to much in the way of rigorous
     statistical analysis.  I don't think that this error can be
     corrected at this point.  It is a apparently a fatal flaw.

5)  I think that the person that did these tests was in much
     the same boat I find myself.  Clearly what could have been
     of use would have been better descriptions and definitions
     of exactly what "small cell" entails.  (For example, Clay Huestis
     made an excellent start of laying out some basic facts
     in his post of Saturday, Dec 7, 2002).  I'm not sure that
     the person who did the tests described really understood
     even as much as was explained by Clay.

6)  As an aside, if more "small cell" posts were written like
     Clay's, small cell would have MUCH more credibility
     among the general beekeeping public.

But if you want me to agree that the report is "lousy science", I won't.
It isn't "science" at all.

What I read is nothing more than one group's observations of
the results of:

a) a methodology that is not clearly explained

b) testing a premise that is also not clearly explained

c) apparently using "tests" of comb that can only be
    described as "random" or "in transition".

...so the whole report can only be understood within the highly
unique context of the "tests" performed.  I'm not sure what
connection these "tests" might have with actual beekeeping,
since I don't think anyone has ever before tried what was done
in this case, nor do I think anyone will ever try it again.

I guess the most charitable thing that could be said is that the
report confirms that colonies in the middle of being "downsized
to small cell" do not provide consistent data, and do not willingly
submit to the will of the beekeeper in regard to cues offered by
smaller foundation.  So, it confirms what may be well understood
by folks like Clay Huestis.

        jim