"No Treatment" Study

[WLC]

Roland:

One of the reasons I was advocating for a list of claims/hypotheses and variables is because of what you just mentioned.

If it was a survey, drone related methods could easily be included and could be used to form a 'group' for comparison to other groups.

As someone said (I forgot who/where), surveys/polls can be done by email. They just need to be constructed properly with a good research design in place.

I'm wondering if the 'essential oils' crowd would feel slighted if they were left out?

[Jack Grimshaw]

StevenG,

Lively topic. Sounds like a b(ee)log. It doesn't have to be a "controled" experiment.

Queens? ....... requeen? your own? supercedure?

Nucs?.............. Queen source? % compared to producers?

"the "experiment" is designed to answer those people who say that colonies that go untreated will eventually crash, die out, and you'll have no bees."

They will crash eventually. That's why we make nucs. Stay ahead of the curve.


Been following a similar path for 5yrs but can't type. Between 20 -30 % winter loss.

Jack

[heaflaw]

IMO:

It should be designed by those of you who have the experience & knowledge of scientific study. We want it to have real meaning.
Don't exclude those who feed, but whether one does or does not should be included as a comparison.
The survey method makes sense because with everyone just writing a statement of how the year went, important variables can be left out.

[beenovice]

Some questions are already answered...

http://www.apidologie.org/index.php?...118/m6118.html

[c10250]

Now THAT'S how you run an experiment. For me, someone simply not treating the whole population, and then saying, "I only lost 20%", means nothing. What would the losses be if you treated? 0%, 10%, 50%??

It has been shown, over and over again, that you can have bees and not treat. I'm not sure what your experiment is going to show.

[StevenG]

Ah, finally! Someone else indicates that it has been shown, over and over again, that you can have bees, they will survive, and you don't have to treat! Peter Loring Borst made the statement in another thread that people who do not treat lose 100% of their colonies. My purpose was to show that I don't have to treat any, and I will NOT lose 100% of my colonies. In fact, I have gone treatment free for 4 seasons, and have lost only one hive out of 14 in those 4 years. It is interesting that Peter has not participated in this thread at all.

Therefore you make a good point. Why should I spend my time, energy, and effort for the next two years to stretch my "experiment" out a total of six years, and present data and records here covering those six years? I can simply go about my beekeeping (since my life insurance mortality table indicates 85 years, I have another 23 years, if I maintain my health! ) and not worry about demonstrating anything to the sceptics here. They can find the data elsewhere, if they care to look. And it will be more "scientific" than a simple presentation of experience would be...apparently more acceptable too.
Regards,
Steven

[WLC]

Now THAT'S how you run an experiment. For me, someone simply not treating the whole population, and then saying, "I only lost 20%", means nothing. What would the losses be if you treated? 0%, 10%, 50%??

It has been shown, over and over again, that you can have bees and not treat. I'm not sure what your experiment is going to show.

How about a study that compares management practices for untreated hives?

The purpose being to find the best ways to manage untreated hives.

A productive, untreated hive is a good goal.

So...

Purpose:

"The purpose of this study is to identify the best management practices for untreated hives."

Hypothesis:

Untreated hives can show increased survival and productivity through the use of common management practices.

Variables:

(a whole bunch of stuff beekeepers do and keep track of.)

---

It would be a way to compare what different no-treatment beekeepers are doing, and perhaps even identify the most effective practices.

In short, it has a real potential payoff for beekeepers instead of being yet another 'egg head' study.

[Barry]

Barry - Thank you for the idea of the password and WordPress pages. I assume this is something that would be posted here as a new thread?

Actually it would give you access to your own "web page(s)" on the beesource site. You can incorporate whatever you want on the pages. This can then be linked to the forums. The tools are already in WordPress for you to use.

[WLC]

Uh, Barry.

Do you have a survey plugin for wordpress, or would we need to go to a place like here http://www.surveygizmo.com/add-ons/w...survey-plugin/ to get one if we needed it?

[Barry]

It's not a plugin I currently have installed, but we can certainly use it if it's what people feel will be useful.

[WLC]

That's why IMO(strongly) this should be designed by someone in the scientific community. I don't us to go to the trouble only to be told 6 years from now that the study has no meaning because we left out some variables.

Heaflaw:

I think StevenG was under the impression that it had to be a longitudinal study (I think he finds this stuff confusing ). It doesn't. There are easier means to do a study. A cross sectional questionnaire is an example of one such approach that doesn't have to leave anyone out.

He's also right to point out that he and others have been successfully doing this no-treatment experiment for years. What do they need to prove?

We can make this study rigorous (statistical significance/confidence level) by including those variables (especially management methodology) that you mention. A good survey always has a space under every response for written comments just in case something wasn't covered or the respondent isn't sure where something fits. A good study has a purpose and working hypothesis.

Purpose: "The purpose of this study is to identify the best management practices for untreated hives."

Hypothesis: Untreated hives can show increased survival and productivity through the use of common management practices.

Variables: (a whole bunch of stuff beekeepers do and keep track of.)

The above is just one approach. But, you actually need to write something down first.

Now what the 'no-treatment' and other beekeepers need to do is think of what those variables and data could be. Then, respond to this thread so we know what they are.

The idea of not using treatments (pesticides) is spreading throughout many different fields of human endeavor. It's often what's done in addition to removing pesticides that proves to be important. For example, someone suggested I use fish instead of Bt to control mosquitoes (but it's a bucket!).

[WLC]

Peter:

You 'strenuously object' to people from other fields proposing a study?

Does a sociologist have to be a drug addict to study crackheads (since you are so fond of analogies )?

Why do I seem to be the only one who has proposed a statement of purpose and working hypothesis that includes much of what you have advocated?

You don't have to be a beekeeper/scientist/inspector to create and implement a research design. In fact, it's far better that the investigator is 'none of the above' to eliminate BIAS. (You aren't biased in any way now, are you? )

So far, I'm still waiting to hear what others are proposing as the purpose of this study.

Let's start with the basics already. We need to start with lists. Claims, variables, practices, etc. .

PS: a longitudinal study proposal is just a kiss off. You might as well 'send it to a committee'.

[WLC]

"I think that the operative word is advocating. A study shouldn't be advocating anything, that is obvious bias and invalidates the results."

A study that advocates nothing! AKA pure/basic research!

Purpose: "The purpose of this study is to identify the best management practices for untreated hives."

Hypothesis: Untreated hives can show increased survival and productivity through the use of common management practices.

Variables: (a whole bunch of stuff beekeepers do and keep track of.)

So...

How is identifying 'best practices' a bias? Maybe the no-treatment hives you were thinking of are found in a tree hollow.

It's no-treatment beekeeping, not ferals.

How about some specific proposals for a study?

PS: Marketing? Hmmm... perhaps a sponsor? Don't be afraid to speak up if you get any other ideas.

[Allen Dick]

Well, it seems we have a good mix of intelligent people here with varying backgrounds, and a lot of good ideas. Now, if the boys could just stop poking one another and rough-housing, maybe we can get down to business.

It seems clear to me that we should be able to incorporate most or all the ideas, since this is to be something different from traditional projects in that it is open and public and hopefully receiving inputs and direction on an ongoing basis, rather than at the end.

Any number of differing operations or analyses can be done on data collected if only the necessary underlying operations and data collection points and methods are identified in advance so that the necessary manipulations (if any) are performed in a proper and timely manner and that all necessary data is collected and tabulated.

One thing that appears to have become clear is that merely owning a group of hives that survives until a deadline and writing about that is not going to be sufficient to do more than prove they did not die as predicted by some, because we will have no clear idea what challenges they faced, if any, and what mechanisms are responsible for any failures and successes.

So far we hear lots of generalities, but let's suggest at this point what data needs to be collected and why it would be useful.

I'll reiterate that in my mind regular mite drops, periodic nosema readings and occasional tracheal measurements along with some periodic analysis of brood health, honey production records and a record of splitting and stock introduction are a basic minimum for getting a glimpse into what is going on. Some of this involves cost and effort, but let's just assume at this point that the resources will materialize.

If several different stocks are in use, perhaps it would be useful to track them separately somehow.

I guess it comes down to deciding exactly what the minimum data collection activities must be, writing the management scheme, and seeing if Steve and any others who want to run similar groups are up to the job.

[winevines]

Good morning curious beeks!

Any other comments or suggestions?
Regards,
Steven

Keep it simple. We have been attempting to collect data from 25 beekeepers for our SARE grant and it has been a challenge, not to mention the analysis which we are just now starting up on. One thing that would be very important would be location since beesource folks are from so many different places. Then you can look at what info you get by geographic location if you want.

What you are describing is a descriptive study, which may not "prove" anything but would, in my opinion be a valuable project with the end result being a story of what has worked and not worked in certain situations with the folks who participated. Not "scientifcally valid" perhaps, but do not get hung up on that.. the descriptive study is perfect for what you are trying to do.

Survey monkey and similar tools let you collect data on line and download into excel. You can post links to view results and to take the surveys.

[Allen Dick]

> We have been attempting to collect data from 25 beekeepers for our SARE grant

Can you give us a quick glimpse into that or direct us to it?

Thanks.

[winevines]

I will pm you with info. of what we are doing.

Last time I posted details on our SARE grant on beesource, there was a contingent of folks attacked and I am not going down that road again.

[Barry Digman]

Just get the list of things that need to be observed and recorded put together.

I don't think it has to be a designed experiment or survey or something with a hypothesis to be tested at this point. Can we just provide a sufficient number of reliable data points so that someone, sometime, can use them to analyze the effects of treatment free beekeeping?

I recall (Jim Fischer's?) frustration with the early CDC work when it was so difficult to collect data because people wouldn't DO THE WORK of observing and recording without a perfectly constructed program.

[Allen Dick]

> Last time I posted details on our SARE grant on beesource, there was a contingent of folks attacked and I am not going down that road again.

That is unfortunate. People do expose themsleves when posting to these forums, since any moderation is after the fact.

One has to have thick skin.

Thanks for the PM. I'm not really looking for more work, but I'll see how your experience applies here and report back.

Is the old thread still here on the forum somewhere?

[ACBEES]

SteveG, I would encourage you to ignore all the present rhetoric and evisceration of your idea and continue with your plans to come up with some guidelines for this study. I for one am still very interested in participating. I look forward to seeing your proposal.