Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 27 Dec 2018 09:00:49 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Sorry Pete, I guess that I was unclear on my points. As Seth pointed out,
the study was supposed to test a hypothesis:
"Here we test the hypothesis that honey bee breeding efforts in United
States have produced locally adapted honey bee stocks with higher
overwintering success in climates where they were bred or reduced
overwintering success out of their climatic zone."
My point was that the researchers did not convince me that they had chosen
locally-adapted stocks to test. Nor that the stocks were genetically
different enough for a meaningful test. Nor did they test "overwintering
success." Rather they tested survival over the course of a season. And
since they didn't say whether the unsuccessful colonies had simply starved
out, we don't know whether their failure was due to poor management, or
lack of adaptation to a cool winter, or as Trish points out, poor varroa
management.
I fully understand signal to noise, and the apparently random variation in
colonies (I'm feeding a test yard of 76 hives today, in which the
variability within groups is driving me crazy. My point was that if they
wanted to test wintering ability, they should have provided all hives with
adequate winter stores, since wintering success appeared to strongly
correlate with the amount of stores going into winter.
--
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
|
|
|