From: "Allen Dick" <allend@internode.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 23:09:40 -0700
To: <BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Food chambers

> There are MANY more hobby, small scale beekeepers around this country than
> there are commercial, and concerns you may have in your beekeeping operation
> may not be the least bit of concern for a small scale beekeeper.

Losing bees in winter may not matter to you or small beekeepers? Okay. My
mistake. Sorry.

> Another
> dynamic that plays into how we use the information Clay read to us from
> Root. Perhaps we are both justified in our view seeing that we are both
> looking at it from opposite ends?

Possibly. I just prefer to look from the end that begins with proven facts
and experience. It is probably just a matter of taste.

> I'm referring to people who say feeding sugar to bees is as good or better
> than letting the bees winter on their own honey.

Analyse that statement. 'As good as' -- probably true. 'Better than' --
possibly true.

Now reverse it. Is their honey 'as good as' sugar -- possibly. Better?
No, apparently not.

Given that a person may not be sure, what is the prudent course? Sugar as
supplement, or if there is great doubt, then all sugar.

If a person is sure his honey is good for wintering (He has always had good
success) then honey is fine.

> Maybe it's kinda like the
> history of foundation. Once one started doing it, everyone did and now it
> seems to be common practice, even for those of us who don't make our living
> from beekeeping.

I don't think so, since the sugar/honey question has been clearly stated and
tested repeatedly -- and moreover, beekeepers routinely have opportunities
to compare wintering performance with and without sugar.

The whole foundation matter is very much more complex, and AFAIK scientific
comparisons were never made. Sure, a few tests were made to show that bees
could be made a bit larger, but that was about it -- AFAIK. Where are the
side-by-side tests of 4.9 to 5.0 to 5.1 to 5.2 to 5.3 to 5.7 or whatever?
Never happened. Even today there are no controlled tests. It's all
opinion, hearsay and reasoning based on questionable assumptions. That's
not to say anyone is wrong -- results speak volumes -- but the stories could
sure use some work, if they are right.

The truth is out there. Empirical evidence seems to be developing that
*something* real is happening related to cell size -- but what? Even those
directly involved seem to have trouble coming up with a clear explanation
that reconciles with what is known and what can be proven. As think I said
in another forum, "It works in the field, but can it work in theory"?

That is my main criticism of the whole attempt to make sense of the
foundation and cell size matter from day one, a century and more ago. Most
of the writers and participants were apparently not scientists, and many
were not even good observers. Theory, speculation, imaginings, commercial
ambition and greed seemed to drive the development of foundation.
'"Improvements" simply *had* to be made on imperfect nature.

Claims of advantages and efficacy for changes and 'improvements' were AFAIK
never proven, but blindly accepted to the point where -- as you pointed
out -- when we began beekeeping we had no idea that this whole thing could
be based on false premises and false reasoning and commercial hype. We
accepted the hives we were sold and the foundation that was delivered.

No, sugar feeding is not at all like that. Although there is always a
little more to learn, I think it is clearly a good, although perhaps not
ideal, practice.

> I'm sorry it came across that I was taking you out of context. Then again, I
> certainly didn't pick up on your lighthearted comment the other day. Usually
> you use a <G> for clarification.

Yeah, sorry. I kinda hate those <G> things because I like to let the reader
discover and enjoy the carefully crafted dry humour, and many do. I get
lots of bouquets. But maybe I should reconsider. Those occasional stones
coming thru the window get me worried sometimes.

> I hope I've made things more clear this time.

Yup, and I think I over-reacted. (There's always a first time for
everything).

allen
<G>