Keith Forsyth said:

> You may wish to go to the following site...
> "Experimentation of Anti-Varroa Screened Bottom Board..."

Yes, many of us read M. Chapleau's paper.
It contained many frank and honest statements.

M. Chapleau is to be credited for his frankness,
but one is forced to wonder why he published
those results at all.  Perhaps publishing something
was a condition of the study funding.

M. Chapleau's frank statements might be overlooked by
a beekeeper, but are red flags to any professional
research scientist, such as:

  "...this bottom board succeeded in reducing, on
  average, by 37% the varroa populations of the
  colonies during the season of 2001. The global
  results obtained however were not statistically
  significant except for certain sampled sub groups
  where the experiment conditions were more homogeneous."
  (pg 3)

Plain English "Take No Prisoners" Translation:

        The results were garbage except in cases
        where "test" and "control" colonies were
        subjected to similar conditions.

Of course one wants "homogeneous" experiment conditions!
If you don't get them, you abort the experiment, and
start over with a different, better methodology.

Another problem with the study is that they only did
mite counts in May and September, rather than more
often, which would have provided more data points,
and a better view of screen versus solid bottoms.
With only two measurements months apart, one can mistake
a broken clock for one that keeps perfect time!

Another problem is that no tracking of colony population
(in terms of frames of brood, perhaps) was done, which
is a critical factor.  Think about it - a bigger colony
is a good thing, and a bigger colony will certainly have
a larger mite count than a weak colony, even when the
infestation rate is slightly lower in the bigger colony.
This study would have judged the bigger colony as "more
infested", and would have jumped to the conclusion that
the screened bottom did not "help" a colony that was
DOUBLE the strength of the other at the end of the season.

Yet another problem was initial colony populations.

        "The first group (large group) was
        made up from 170 standard colonies
        of greatly varying strength..." (pg 6)

Well, if colony populations are unequal, then one would
have to question how brood areas could be equal, and
how similar conditions for mite development could exist
in terms of numbers of live bees and brood cells.

How could one then go on to compare mite populations
in these colonies of "greatly varying strength"?  How
could one even call these colonies "standard"?
Exactly what was "standard"?  The woodenware???

I could go on... they were uncertain if some specific
colonies had been treated with the "spring miticide
treatments" and excluded them from the results, but
somehow did not question if the same error had been
made with any other colonies. (pg 8)

None of the observations and conclusions I make above
require any specialized training or education.
All one need do is read the complete paper.
Slowly.


                jim

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::