Allen Dick wrote:
>
> One of the factors that appears to me to have changed in the last few
> decades is increasing understanding of statistics and importance of
> sample size and internal consistency in the scientific and lay
> community, and the routine exposure of experimental results to
> statistical analysis.  (I must add here, though that I have seen what
> appeared to be sophisticated statistical analysis attached to
> published research that was obviously basically flawed  -- GIGO).
>
> The result of applying statistical thinking has been to expose what
> at first blush appears to be significant differences found in
> (limited) experiments to be only *normal variation* naturally
> occuring within a sample.
 
-snip-
 
> Another problem with very small samples is that it is hard, if not
> impossible,  to examine groups within them for internal variation and
> filter out the effects.
>
> Added to this is the fact that <asbestos underwear on> I have seen
> some well known and very well respected peer-reviewed research
> lately, offering only one year's results over limited numbers of
> hives, and in only one region.  I have seen no indication that
> anyone has sought to duplicate the results and yet everyone, high and
> low, seems to believe the published results, rather than see them as
> a challenge to look further.
 -snip-
> I am also concerned that, when researchers do not set a good example,
> that it is understandable that the public falls for bad science and
> anecdotal cures.  It also reduces the public's confidence in research
> (we're not stupid) and makes funds harder to get (maybe a good
> thing).
 
-snip-
 
Allen has a very good point here.  Most of us do not have the time and
money to dedicate some of our hives to doing research, and therefore are
dependant upon research done by others.  We need to have confidence in
such research if we are going to change our management procedures, or we
could be big losers.
 
For example - I'm now wondering about annual variations which might
affect varroa.  A year ago I had terrible losses from these mites, and
blamed myself and my "lax" procedures.  However, stories from all over
North America (at least) confirmed that it was happening everywhere.
But this past autumn I medicated early with Apistan, put strips in all
my hive bodies, even put essential oil patties in some hives.  So far
this winter I've only lost 3 out of 78 hives (two were my own damn
fault).  But from what I've read and heard, people everywhere are also
having good survival this winter.
 
So what is the explanation?  How can one winter be devastating
everywhere and the next year be OK everywhere?  Is it because +all+
beekeepers learned from their experiences and did a better job after
that?  Or is it just a natural variation from year to year?  I don't
think we know that yet.  But it +is+ really important to know the answer
to this question.  Beekeeper's anecdotes cannot possibly give the
answer; it is only with careful, thoughtful research carried out over a
number of years, using carefully controlled experiments with the variety
of treatments now being proffered, that answers to the varroa question
will be forthcoming.
 
Ted Fischer
Dexter, Michigan USA