Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 106
  1. #61

    Post

    I've talked to ABJ and they are interested, but said I shouldn't be too technical, whatever that means. I guess they aren't interested in t-tests and standard deviations. There are other journals as well. So, yes it will be subject to the peer review process. The outcome of that matters little to me, though.

    I just got tired of the chin music regarding v. destructor and so I'm doing something about it to see what works. Regardless of my results, some people live to be disagreeable and will tear the study apart. I'm well aware of the flaws, but it's designed to be what it is. I've funded it myself and honestly I'm only interested in finding a way to help the old beekeepers I know keep healthy bees again and be chemical free. If others benefit from it, that's good too. If SC works, great, if not...I still won't use chemicals, but at least I'll know for sure. I'm recreating what a backyard, suburban beekeeper might go through. In other words, I won't be waving a flag that says "this study sponsored by Dr. Bucket's Mite-B-Gon" and I won't be making assumptions for my benefit or for others. I was asked that I seek to publish. It wasn't my idea as I don't place much stock in peer review in matters such as this. A group of people can say a square is round. That doesn't make it so. Another group will argue that the square was measured wrong and it actually has three sides. Still another will say the square could be a box or line, depending on conditions. I don't have the patience or desire to be another Dr. R. That combined with my experiences on this very forum have somewhat reduced my opinion of the process (that's why the above was my first post in a year). Emotion and opinion have no place in science. The numbers will either support your theory or they won't, they rarely "prove" things; especially given the uncontrolable nature...of nature. Having said that, if you want to be underwhelmed look me up when the study is complete.
    Last edited by Barry; 07-10-2011 at 02:38 PM.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    > I've talked to ABJ and they are interested, but
    > said I shouldn't be too technical, whatever that
    > means.

    ABJ is not really "peer reviewed" like the "real
    journals", but I'm surprised. Joe said that?
    He wants READABLE articles suddenly? [img]smile.gif[/img]
    (I can kid Joe, he knows I'm only having fun.)

    > That combined with my experiences on this very
    > forum have somewhat reduced my opinion of the
    > process

    Don't let a group who has never been published
    discourage you about publishing. Every point
    you make is sometimes correct, but by publishing,
    you add another brick to the bridge. Others
    can add their own bricks atop yours, and they
    may not agree with you 100%, but if your data
    is solid, and your stats are fair, you can
    stand your ground, and ignore anything except
    different data from someone who did as much
    work as you did.

    > Emotion and opinion have no place in science.

    Yeah, right. We're all supposed to be a bunch
    of Vulcans, just like Mr. Spock. Uh huh, sure.
    Get real! Science is just a place where you
    MIGHT be able to settle an argument with some
    actual hard facts, and admit that you were wrong!

    Next conference, skip a session. Head for the bar.
    That's where known facts are accelerated to nearly
    the speed of light, and smashed head-on into other
    known facts to see which one breaks first. [img]smile.gif[/img]

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lenexa, Kansas
    Posts
    445

    Post

    John, if you let us know when you are ready, I will most certainly read what you have! Though, at the moment I just get an olive green box with the words "my friends in the box" on it.

    One question...."second regression?" What's that?
    Last edited by Barry; 07-10-2011 at 02:39 PM.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    526

    Post

    Hi Jim and Everyone,

    >Can I drive over from East Virginia to take some >photos, and ask some dumb questions?

    That's great! It's about time someone in the peer-review group puts some of their own money out where the rubber meets the road :&gt.

    Although, I have had the small cell beeswax candle lit for a visitor, for 5 years, and the candle has done burnt out. So much for Casper, Wyoming as a destination spot :&gt))

    But be careful Jim, if you find some indications that small cell works, and you write about it. You might loose your status with your peers :&gt)))

    Regards
    Dennis
    Have a great trip!

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    > But be careful Jim, if you find some indications
    > that small cell works, and you write about it.
    > You might loose your status with your peers :&gt)))

    Nope, all that would impact "status" (as if I
    give a hoot...) would be to make claims without
    evidence, or infer to much from mere "indications".

    Hey, I'd love for it all to be true.
    We all would.

    I'd also like a flying carpet, faster than
    light travel, free energy without pollution,
    and perpetual motion. They'd be fun.

    But what I'd like to be true is not going to
    sway anyone's views. One needs some hard proof.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lenexa, Kansas
    Posts
    445

    Post

    Can anyone tell me what is meant by "second regression?"

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Troupsburg, NY
    Posts
    4,074

    Post

    Terri:

    The first time you put LC bees onto SC foundation, they may not take the cells down to the desired size, so you would put in fresh SC foundation, one or two frames at a time, and remove one or two of the larger cell frames. Remember, your desired worker cell size is 4.9mm or smaller. Or you could shake the entire colony onto new SC foundation and place the brood above the broodnest with a queen excluder between them to force the workers to draw the new foundation for the queen to lay in.

    peggjam
    "I reject your reality, and substitute my own." Adam Savage

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lenexa, Kansas
    Posts
    445

    Post

    Thanks!

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    81

    Post

    peggjam is there a website that shows the process you just described? I'd like a visual.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Troupsburg, NY
    Posts
    4,074

    Post

    skimedickc:

    Not sure about a website, that would be a better question for MB. How about it Michael?

    peggjam
    "I reject your reality, and substitute my own." Adam Savage

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    46,084

    Post

    How do you do a visual of feeding empty frames into the brood nest? When the bees are strong you move empty frames in. You can put removed frames up a box, take them out altogether (if they are empty or full of honey) or put them above an excluder.

    This has been described many times on Beesource in many postings.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Hiram, Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    731

    Post

    I've read through this whole thread and I have to say I find it pretty odd that this would become a somewhat heated topic.

    Is it an established fact that
    A. the period from larvae to emergence is shorter in a small cells
    Is it an established fact that
    B. mite reproduction rate is impacted by the time available for breeding within the cell?

    If both A & B are true, then the fanciful analogies of magic carpets, free energy, etc. are more appropriate for those who would lean towards the view that SC would have no impact on mite populations, regardless of "hopes." If either A or B are not true, then perhaps the magic carpet comments are not too far off base.

    If no one has tested A & B-- why the heck not? A seventh grader could do these studies.
    It\'s people! Soylent Green is peeeeople!

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Corralitos, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post

    I have to agree with Darrel Wright. If his A & B above were to become established facts I'd like to change over to SC too, otherwise it seems like too much work for what might be an entirely fanciful idea. My doubt over SC is based on the matter that it seems that nearly 100% percent of feral hives, presumably mainly naturally regressed to small cell, were wiped out by Varroa in the 80's and 90's. So, why should it now make a difference?

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    46,084

    Post

    >I have to agree with Darrel Wright. If his A & B above were to become established facts I'd like to change over to SC too, otherwise it seems like too much work for what might be an entirely fanciful idea.

    >If no one has tested A & B-- why the heck not? A seventh grader could do these studies.

    Precisely. So whey the heck don't the rest of you do this simple experiment for yourselves? If you don't have a lot of time to spend on it, buy an observation hive (if you don't have one you should anyway) and watch the bees in there. Put some small cell foundation in. You can mark on the glass the cell you watched the queen lay in with a letter and write down the exact date and time on a list. Check it every morning before you go to work and every evening when you get home and every night before you go to bed. You can wait few days, since you know it won't get capped for sure before day 7 (more likely day 8), so you could start there. Even with the 5.1mm (which they will probably draw to start off) you'll see a difference. With 4.9mm you'll see a bigger difference and with natrual drawn 4.6 or 4.7mm you'll see even more. So write down the day and time you saw the cell was capped and the day and time you saw the cell was empty or emerging. You can start looking for this on day 18 or so. With an observation hive you don't even have to disturb them and you can do it in the comfort of your living room. According to research and modeling you only have to shorten pre capping by 8 hours and post capping by 8 hours to stablized the reproduction of the Varroa so it doesn't take over a hive.

    >My doubt over SC is based on the matter that it seems that nearly 100% percent of feral hives, presumably mainly naturally regressed to small cell, were wiped out by Varroa in the 80's and 90's. So, why should it now make a difference?

    That has not been my observation. I find feral colonies. The ferals got hit with a lot of things at once. Tracheal mites, Varroa mites, viruses and crashing hives all around them with lots of Varroa to bring home. I'm sure it put a dent in the population of the feral hives, but I see quite a few.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  15. #75
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Farmington, New Mexico
    Posts
    6,566

    Post

    I'm not a commercial beekeeper, nor am I a scientist, but I think that there's a possibility that there simply will not be a "one size fits all" solution to this issue.
    I suggest that there are too many variables in beekeeping to establish an experiment protocol that would produce a result that could then be offered as a universal methodolgy utilizing small cell to control varroa. Surely everything that cannot be controlled for has some influence on the success or failure of a particular test regimen; geography, climate, size of the operation, proximity of other bee yards, skill of the beekeeper, etc. Additionally, even though SC is effective in a given situation, will it be economically viable for a guy with 10,000 hives? From a scientific standpoint I'd like to see the study done by qualified people just to see what happens. I would not, however, expect the results to provide any sort of panacea or for it to be adopted by everyone.
    Nobody ruins my day without my permission, and I refuse to grant it...

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    526

    Post

    Hi Guys,

    >Additionally, even though SC is effective in a >given situation, will it be economically viable for >a guy with 10,000 hives

    Precisely! So why are so many requiring others to do their work! It should be enough that those who have taken the time to explore these areas, have freely shared their ideas, tests and results.

    In most areas of commerce, such discoveries would be considered a trade secrete and wouldn't even be patented to protect the information. Look at the history of cultured pearls, the silk trade and even in our day, commercial bumble bee rearing.

    I'll bet the same could be expected with commercial discoveries concerning solitary pollinators like orchard bees, etc.

    The honey business, in the US, is very different. Beekeepers have freely shared almost all info for a hundred years. I think the bee mags have been a large factor in this area and that is one real plus that a trade journal has when compared to a peer reviewed one.

    Regards
    Dennis
    Wondering why any beekeeper would use a smoker? I'm not aware of a single study proving that it works! :&gt)))

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Hiram, Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    731

    Post

    Obviously there are so many factors to keeping a hive that it would be difficult to prove to scientific standards that small cell will protect a hive from Varroa or anything else. Who cares? If it can be proven that small cells inhibit mite reproduction TO ANY DEGREE (which as I say should be ridiculously easy) then at the very least you have a proven dog in the hunt. And I would think that any enterprising bee scientist would be delighted to cherry pick this study.

    I have to wonder if the small-cell rhetoric developed by the Lusby's (which supposes a "natural" cell size and urges a lamarckian understanding of genetics) has simply poisoned the scientific community and created irrational hostility to the basic idea.

    Just because someone proposes an incorrect description of the way something functions does not mean that the thing does not function. Helios may not hitch up flaming horses and drag the sun through the sky, but the sun does act as if he did in many respects. Pushing the bees towards a heavy weighting of small cells could be as totally "unnatural" as pushing them towards all large cells. It could have little or no "genetic" or "learning" component at all. And yet we may be able to get bees to draw smaller cells, and it could help remedy the problem of hive crashes. A sweeping bow to Dennis for all the excellent work he has done which basically points this up.

    Again, if SC shortens developement time, and development time impacts mite repreduction, how could it fail to have an effect?
    It\'s people! Soylent Green is peeeeople!

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,071

    Post

    I have to wonder if the small-cell rhetoric developed by the Lusby's (which supposes a "natural" cell size and urges a lamarckian understanding of genetics) has simply poisoned the scientific community and created irrational hostility to the basic idea.

    Well, one might assume that genetics may play a factor in cell size, otherwise how could one do a study on ‘THE EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND GENETIC FACTORS DETERMINING THE CELL SIZE OF HONEYBEE COMB’ Pirk, C, Hepburn, HR Hepburn, C and Tautz, J. The manuscript to my knowledge has not been published as of yet, but I’m sure the results will be interesting.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,649

    Post

    >And I would think that any enterprising bee scientist would be delighted to cherry pick this study.

    At the bee conventions and seminars I’ve attended when the subject of 4.9mm or small cell foundation comes up during a question and answer session, it gets met with little more than a patronizing response on the part of the researcher. Sometimes, too, the audience will heckle the questioner for asking.

    At the beginning of this thread this was said:

    >> Now it is suddenly claimed that no one "wants"
    > to do the research? That's just untruthful.

    In response, Barry asked this:

    >Okay, give us names.

    We are still waiting for the names......

    (Mike Stanghellini did subsequently write that he wants to look into it himself. I hope you are able to do it Mike)

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Troupsburg, NY
    Posts
    4,074

    Post

    If you are waiting for documented proof that it works before trying it yourself, you'd better stock up on chemical treatments. Enough to say, last you the rest of your beekeeping career. For those of us that feel it is worth trying without "documented proof" we're already on it. If it works, it works, if it don't, so what, at least we tried it. The proof is in the hive.

    peggjam
    "I reject your reality, and substitute my own." Adam Savage

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads