BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:00:41 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
> The "actual feet on the ground" sound like statistically insignificant

> anecdote (can't see the forest for the trees), 

I'm not sure how an inspection and sample collection effort that
resulted in peer-reviewed "statistically significant" data could 
be dismissed as somehow statically Insignificant in terms of 
metadata (the detailed descriptions of symptoms and conditions 
noted about each hive, yard and operation from which samples 
were collected).

> which is about all we can say for the big picture provided 
> by non-random surveys

Now one can't have it both ways - if neither a dedicated effort 
to inspect large numbers of hives in detail using consistent
criteria nor a nationwide self-reporting survey are sufficient,
doesn't at least the general agreement between the two add 
considerable confidence?

> almonds tell an aggregate story

I disagree strongly.  Higher fees for almond pollination will attract 
new players who might have otherwise stayed home, so the market
is far top fluid to think that there would be a one-for-one 
impact between losses taken by less than all operations and
hives made available for rental.  In fact, even those affected
to extraordinary measures to build up colony numbers, buying
packages, making splits and generally scrambling to be able
to continue to meet their contracted commitments.

The problem is, all this cost extra money, for no extra
income above what they might have earned anyway.
And you can't track that until operations start going bust.
That's the sort of "proof" I'd rather not have, thank you.

> as does the supply of package bees.  

To my knowledge, there was a report from one single package
operation of what might have been CCD symptoms, which was
then promptly retracted when they realized the implications
of what they were saying.  Its not clear that ANY package
operations were affected by CCD.

> Don't almonds and packages tell the most reliable stories 
> about the broad impact of CCD? 

No.

Its more complex than that.
Much more.

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2