Hello Frank -

I was in the middle of a reply back to Allen but will now work it in to
yours as you included his.

>> The success of a technique does not have to be absolute to be
>> considered worthwhile.  If SMR only reduces the need for
>> treatment by half, it will still be a success.
>
> If SMR bees enable people to treat once a year instead of twice (for
> example) that sounds like significant success to me.

A lot of what Allen pointed out is true and I'm in full agreement with. The
part that bothers me is how are people going to determine what that level of
success is if they continue to treat the bees with chemicals? This will
effectively give false conclusions. It seems to me one would have to start
with nothing and work back up with chemicals to see what the threshold is
for data to be accurate.

The fact that there are outside influences on any test hive should not
detour the test or it's results as these same influences are there for all
the hives. After all, these same influences will be there, test hive or not,
and this should give even a better mark of those untreated bees if they can
handle these other surrounding influences.

It seems we are starting at opposite ends of the line trying to test the
same thing. I guess I simply question how effective testing can be if you
start with the premise that chemicals are used with the new stock. Surely
some would want to keep some hives free of treatment somewhere?

It was pointed out to me that Bob H. may have stated in one of his earlier
posts that he is keeping some test hives free of treatments. If this is so,
I apologize for this over site and am glad this is being done.

Regards,
Barry