Yes, it tells us that honey crops in poly can be 10-20% higher (less bee-energy and stores used to modulate internal climate); overwintering easier; lighter equipment = reduced beekeeper energy and transport & equipment costs.
E&M: check the posts of ITLD (Murray McGregor of Denrosa Apiaries) who runs several thousand UK colonies and was an early user of poly. His clear conclusions were drawn from experience, but beekeeper tradition plods along claiming wood is sacrosanct: tradition, you note, not contemporary practical assessment. Ian is quite right to claim that bees overwinter fine in wood, but when the winter is hard and the variables unkind, thriving is less likely and survival compromised more quickly than in poly.
As I understand it, when the BS National was designed after the Second World War wood was scarce and expensive and BS had to specify from what was available; thermal efficiency was less relevant. On the other hand, poly manufacturers set out from the start to improve thermal efficiency and so enable colonies to not only survive, but thrive and produce in excess of wood.
In defence of the wood-lovers, bear in mind that beekeeping is a craft and making, bodging, and repairing is craftwork building valuable skills, and some (including me) like nothing better than spend time fettling wooden equipment. But as poly beats tradition in many ways, and as time is a rare asset , poly is my way forward.
