> Unfortunately, paywalled.  

Don't ask, don't tell, but a (ahem) "post-print" is secreted here for your review and critique:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15gbvh_alrc8KAfefQdNHqWngyvcxeCoO/view?usp=sharing
https://tinyurl.com/5a67y6mb

> a critique of their methodology?

While "quarantine" (or is it actually "quarantWine"?) conditions have allowed me to reduce the teetering stack of pre-prints and journals by the bed that threatened to fall and smother Joanne and I in our sleep,  have not gotten as "caught up" with my reading as far as this very recent paper.

A glance shows that they took the experienced opinions of about a dozen well-known credentialed industry luminaries, and used some basic math to assign "weights" to their opinions.  So far, so good.
But the opinions were about the self-reported practices of beekeepers. The inherent problem with this approach is that most beekeepers with more than a hobby number of hives honestly can't say how many colonies they have at any one time, and all will constantly lie about honey tonnage, pollination fees, and how much they can deadlift.

While the approach is far superior to relying on the advice of the usual collection of performance artists, facebook/youtube beekeeping cosplayers, and Instagram/internet forum influencers who intone banalities and statistically insignificant (but numerically "better-looking") results as if they were received wisdom, there are still limits here - a "survey paper" ideally looks at the data from studies itself, not the opinions of academics and extension on the results of a survey of beekeepers.


Remember well, if a man tells you that he "keeps bees", you should be wary, as he has already told you one lie, and is likely to tell you another.

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