>Michael: we could be talking apples and oranges. I will try to make myself clear. I view apriculture (beekeeping) and bee biology (research) seperately , this seperation in your opinion may or may not be proper. In the seperation I realize of course that the two can be practiced by the same person, it is not unsual to find a scientist who practice apriculture. I do believe however that few if any apriculturist are scientist.
Most beekeepers I have known have a keen interest in the little details of what is the best to do for their bees. This often leads to experiments. Some of this experimentation is not very scientific and some of it is. In the long run, though, methods that require a lot of effort with little return are rejected. Methods that give noticeably better results for reasonable effort are retained. Methods that require little effort, but seemed at one point to help, may also be retained or skipped. The point is that not only have beekeepers innovated all of the useful techniques of beekeeping but also in the big wide world of lots of bees and lots of hives the reality of things gets tested.
Many drugs have been carefully researched with careful scientific studies only to be released into the wild and find out that in that thing we call reality there were things that did not show up in the research. I can give hundreds of life devastating examples if you insist, but Phen-Phen should suffice for a recent one.
As the truckers say, this is where the rubber meets the road.
Can you name some useful beekeeping innovations, other than a few stopgap poisons for mites that came from official scientist? I dont know of any. AI has had little effect on my life as a beekeeper; in fact Im not so sure it hasnt caused more problems. If we let the bees that survive breed, we would be better off.
>Of the fathers of beekeeping you mentioned. The Rev. Langstroth who discovered bee space and the top opening hive both have served us well and he deserves the recognition,there does seems to be some controversy about the credit he has received for his discovery of removable frames. It appears that he may have gotten the idea from a 1838 book by Munn. See TH&HB third printing 1997 ,page 13 first para.
Im quite certain that Rev. Langstroth didnt discover bee space any more than Columbus discovered that the world was round. Columbus had read what the Greeks and Romans had said on the subject and merely convinced people it was true. But he still changed the world as he knew it. Certainly the Greeks were building moveable combs (top bars) for centuries and Huber had built a moveable comb hive, perhaps not commercially useful, but the concept was already there. Langstroth made a practical one and got people to use it.
Huber, one of the great bee researchers, was a beekeeper and is only respected as a scientist because he acted as one, not because of his credentials.
>Both Rev. Langstroth and Mr. Hoffman were beekeepers , their work falls into my definition of apriculture. I can find no evidence that Mr. Root or Mr Dadent fall into either catagory.
Many of these men came up with small contributions that made beekeeping more commercially viable or less labor intensive. Mr. Dadant did many experiments on what was the correct depth of a frame and he was probably correct but no one uses them. He wrote numerous articles on the details of beekeeping and the science of beekeeping. A.I. Root was a researcher who compiled the then available scientific knowledge of beekeeping into not only a book, but one of the journals of beekeeping. He was careful to site sources and tried to make sure what he presented was known as a fact and not just folklore. He often wrote for the magazine of experiments or discoveries that he and other beekeepers had come up with.
>I do advocate the use of information generated from the scientific community and suggest that the information be used exactely as prescribed. I have been into hives that had two sets of strips in them, these new strip would be the third set.
I agree many beekeepers do not follow directions. Sometimes it is an attempt to save money and a lack of understanding of the principles involved. A lot of beekeepers would follow the directions better if they understood that there was a reason. But I see many scientific studies on methods being purported by beekeepers as being useful against mites and these trained scientists not only do not follow the beekeepers procedures exactly, but obviously have not even bothered to understand the concepts involved.
Also most scientific studies I see on bees are not large enough to be statistically valid nor are they for an entire year to see what effects it has through the seasons, let alone over a longer period of time. A queen may live at least a couple of years and anything that could cause an accumulative effect on her can cause problems in the hive. Any study of anything should run for a couple of years to see what the long-term effects are. Most scientific studies of bees I see published last a month or less.
>You mentioned that if the scientist would work to verify/validate facts found by beekeepers they would be doing the right thing. Could you give us an example of what you mean?. I honestly believe that there are people at the USDA labs. who would love to have your inputs.
There are many alternative mite treatments being used by beekeepers. Many are working at least for some people in some circumstances. Most are not researched at all. When they are researched, the methods are questionable at best. Rather than rehash that I will refer you to my rantings on that:
http://www.beesource.com/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000052.html
>It is said that a good beekeeper does the right thing at the right time, now if I just knew what and when. I without reservation urge you to leave bee biology research to the scientist.
No thanks.
[This message has been edited by Michael Bush (edited February 21, 2003).]