> We used to do this in turf trials for grubs in Ohio. The University
> would put out the treatments, in August all the commercial technical
> reps would evaluate the plots by digging grubs and recording the
> results. I will tell you that this method kept you honest.

That is an interesting story, much like a mother having one child divide the
cookie or pie, for several siblings, but then having to have the last choice
of the pieces.  It is amazing how accurately the job is done.

That also reminds me that often when observations are made, they may be very
accurate, but misunderstood due to overlooking an essential  part of the
context or concentrating on a desired result -- much like the SMR thing..

A few years ago, on canola pollination, we heard some talk questioning the
numbers of bees found in crops and reflecting back badly on some beekeepers
supplying the hives.  Not wanting to be accused of poor coverage, I started
doing my own bee counts in the fields we were pollinating and recording
them.

The hives we provided shared the fields with leaf-cutter bees which were
there to provide half the pollination, as a complement to the honey bees.
The leaf-cutters were known not to forage far, and circles of higher set
seed were often visually observable, centred on the huts where the
leaf-cutters were housed.  The assumption was that this was due to the leaf
cutters activity.

As I mapped the bee coverage, I noticed that there was a noticable increase
in honey bee density right in the zone that is mentioned above, and realised
that it is highly likely - in my mind, at least - to the fact the seed
fields are large tracts with few landmarks, other than the edges and the
huts.

My guess was that the higher density of better pollination may have been due
to the fact that honey bees were orienting to the huts and using them for
reference, not necessarily to the activity of the leaf-cutters!

FWIW.

allen

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---