> Although the sample was indeed small in my opinion if a serious nosema, =
> varroa or tracheal mite problem had been going on it would have turned =
> up.

I offered this question -- to which I know the answer and on which I have
already consulted several practicing experts -- to the "Informed Discussion
of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology" to see if -- with all the talk of
IPM -- anyone really knows how to do it.  So far, Bob is the only person who
is anywhere near being close, and I think he hit a correct answer to the
simplest part of the question, although there is a second part -- and other
factors to consider.

Aaron makes some good comments, but I don't think he has really applied his
mind to the problem, yet in anything more than a superficial way.  He does
not appear to have deduced what the actual purpose of the test was, and what
results would trigger further action -- or what those actions would be.
When he considers cost of sampling, cost of treating, risk of loss,
possibility of treatment working at various stages of infestation, likely
distribution of each pest or disease, value of individual hives, thresholds
for losses, etc.  I am sure he will reach different conclusions.

What decisions have to be made when designing a test to determine how to set
it up? 100% sampling would provide 100% certainty, but also cause 100% loss.
Opening hives in winter is a stress that is proven to increase losses.
Labour and fuel cost money. What significance does 'zero' (and multiple
zeros without exception) have compared to other possible numbers?

Obviously there are trade-offs here and I am not surprised a long-time
commercial beekeeper has come closest (so far) to understanding the initial
step in IPM and reaching a legitimate conclusion from the results.  BUT,
what is the level of confidence?  What next?

No guessing.  It can be calculated.

allen
http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/