An ideal beekeepers' world

[Countryboy]

but you not once suggest any way that commercial beekeepers have a better way to learn the details of how to best work with bee biology and communicate this to the broader beekeeping community for review, criticism and (hopefully) validation by the entire community!

What does THAT have to do with the price of rice in China? It doesn't.

Money talks, and BS walks.

I gave examples of commercial beekeepers (Allen Dick, Keith Jarrett) who found what worked best for them. They funded their research out of their own pocket. They earn their rewards by using their product to make them money. Heck, look at The Honey Householder's operation. Pests and diseases are NOT an issue in his operation.

Review, criticism, and validation are subjective things that DON'T generate profits. They are the feel good fluff; popularity contest crap that is emotion based - and that doesn't pay the bills.

You also bring up 'how to best work with bee biology'. Once again, more subjective theory that is NOT objective. Objective results are what keeps the beekeeper's operation profitable. That is what works best for the beekeeper's operation.

[Allen Dick]

> One of the great things about this site is that there is a great leveling that occurs when one signs in. All posters become equal.

I will agree that all posters may seem equal, especially where pseudonyms are common and writing skills define the writer but some have done their homework, made a life in bees and spent time with bees in their own yards and in other countries and read many books and studies -- and some are just good writers, posers and can tell stories of the sort and in the way that people want to hear.

To the uninitiated, it can be very hard to tell the difference. Pointing that out can be futile and pointless. People will believe what they want. And attitude is everywhere.

Some of the smartest people I have met are illiterate, or nearly so. On the other hand, some of the best writers I have met are more creative than factual.

What does this have to do with the Ideal Beekeeper's World?

In a Perfect World, everyone would read Larry Connor's books and The Hive and The Honey Bee and therefore our bees would not have to unteach us all the stuff most beeginers seem to pick up from romantic and creative beekeeping books and magazine articles.

BTW, thanks, Countryboy, for the kind words, but I must confess that my choices were based on work by published scientists over the years and confirmed by a scientist recently as well. I also keep several bee nutrition books at hand, also written by scientists who have spent their lives learning how to feed insects. I understand the frustration many feel about what scientists seem to be doing and also by what seem not to be doing, but when I get a chance to speak with them, and I know many on a first name basis, I can understand that they are working from a different knowledge base than most people and therefore their perspective is different. I think we can all name some people who have made an impact recently.

I'm going to name only a few, but John Harbo, Tom Rinderer and his crew (too many to name), Jay Evans, Marla Spivak, (I see I am never going to complete this very long list without leaving out many deserving people, so apologies to the rest...)

These are very good people with a great deal of bee knowledge and dedication. I know many work far beyond the hours for which they are paid. Their bee suits are clean because when I do bump into them in the field and I do see them working in bee yards across the US and Canada, they are often not wearing bee suits, and often not veils.

[devdog108]

I think that many of the people who are irritated on here have a reason to be. THe hard work that many of you do, scientific or not, generates critisizm. The operations that do not treat or run chems have been considered "anomolies"...which I find interesting. How many scientists can tell me when they went and studied these anomolies? Why are they anomolies, How long have they been these anomilies? Why is what they are doing working? How many of the regualr beeks can keep an open mind to what the scietific community has and will continue to do and the efforts they put forth?

Its come down to pride.....When you take an operation like Barnett Apiares, Fat/Beemans Operations, MB's operations and run them chem free...then have someone else say NOOOOOOOOO you have to run chems......what do you do as a new beek?

I have read and listened to arguments on both sides and for once I agreed with CountryBoy..lol...But i do see where the scietific community comes into fact here too. The pride that everyone shares as beeks runs high.

To me its not about money, no matter what my wife will tell you...LOL. But in reality, we are all here for the same purpose. Problem being, you can't be in the middle on a discussion like this or you get lambasted from both sides. Science told my granddaddy when to plant his garden(this was an actual study done by UTK)....and he just laughed. He said I'll tell you what. You take 2 acres and plant and I'll take my 2 acres and plant when i want to, and lets see who has the better garden....and so they did. Years this went on. I know I was there every year..LOL. For the life of the guys at UTK, they could not duplicate his success in his garden until they listened to him.....and he explained how timing and seedlings were passed from generation to generation, each row planted at different times and the why's...and maintenace and everything else

Point being here guys is that science does play a deep role in everday things that we do. Where people get offended is when someone calls the average Joes and says...hey dont you have a Ford Truck? You say...Nope..have a toyota. They in turn say...well, you need a Ford and I know you have one....almost to the point of insisting that they do indeed have a ford....when that toyota sits in the driveway. Now why is that? They know what they are doing.....BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING IT!!!!

When i was asked if i would treat and I said no...i got hammered and hammered hard. Even as a 1st year beek, I got lambasted by quite a few on this very forum. Was told...good luck with that, your gonna lose it all, why even bother.....dont come crying to us.....WOW is what i said to myself....but not a single person explained to me why, and when i asked the why's. people got offended.....who are you to question me you 1st year beek.......LOL....COME ON.....why can't I question....its how i LEARN.

Why in the heck would i listen? I am 2nd year beek now and SO MANY Of you have taught me many things, but NOONE seems to want to swallow their pride and admit when they plausibly could be wrong. I am wrong all the time(ask my wife) but i know one thing. I have a great passion and fire to spend money on bugs that try to hurt me whenever i feel like going into their home.....and you know what, I may lose them all, I might. But this who's right and who's wrong......there is no right and there is no wrong when it comes to things like this guys and ladies(if you are indeed a Lady)

Wake up to the new people around you. I have NO desire to listen to this argument any more. Both sides have points and very valid ones. These guys that run small cell and are chem free have something going.......which i think is awesome. The Russian Hybrids have something going....which is awesome. and some....well, they are just anomolies....but it works. Ok, so small cell has been debunked...great, grand...YIPPEEE....then why is it working for some. Thats what i want to know. There is a reason....maybe its selective breeding on queens, maybe its that survivor trait. Man, if i wasn't a stay at home dad, I would ask to come shadow many of you in your own yards....which is also what i wish the scietists would do too. I know what they find....the findings are published....

For the first time since i Found BS, i did not point a new beek here the other day....toooooooo much pride involved.

[WLC]

There are no experts of the molecular parasites in the Honeybee. It's a new discovery.

Peter, I'm betting on the the 'Big Bang' at this point.

[bigbearomaha]

This will be my last post here as well. To a degree, Iagree with countryboy's post as well.

All in all, to me, to discussion about treatment of 'scientists' still comes down to how and who you define as a scientist'.

There are those who who insist that you must be published, degreed and funded to be a 'real' scientist and there are others ( myself) who suggest that since the beginning of modern 'science' that anyone with the dedication to follow the practices and principles of the scientific method are 'real' scientists, regardless of how they make their money.

Many of the folks here don't give a lot of credibility to the published and paid scientists, regarding them as ivory tower, egotistical, holier than thou types who act as though they are saving the world. At the same time, Anyone here can point to published scientists whose 'facts' and studies have been turned upside down in a short time by new studies and new 'facts'.

I consider myself a scientist. I follow the the scientific method closely. My degree is as a computer network technician/administrator.

I have great respect for any person with the discipline and the determination to follow through with local experimentation and then sharing that information with others on places like this for the benefit of others to see what they have learned even though, as countryboy mentioned, they did all the gruntwork, and they paid all the bills yet they come to places like BeeSource and share freely their learning anyway for the benefit of bees and those of us who have a passion for bees.

I et again invite 'self employed scientists' who would like to work together and document their studies in a place that is made for such discussion to help me with the Honey Bee Science network.

Then the 'field' scientists I mention will be able to 'publish' their work and have it duplicated by others like them.

Big Bear

[dickm]

Deamiter said,

>>>>I STRONGLY disagree with your analysis of the results of this experiment. The irradiation of a thousand boxes of comb had a very useful result showing that irradiating thousands of boxes of comb has no measurable effect (on whatever was being measured).

A "failed" experiment (one that doesn't give you the outcome you were hoping for) hardly "proves nothing" and is never useless! If NOTHING else (and usually if an experiment is set up right, you learn something useful no matter what the result) you can stop musing over whatever method you now know is ineffective!<<<<<<

Of course you are right and thanks for pointing it out. What I was trying to say is that it didn't produce any clues to follow up. It did sort of rule out any biological entity that would be infectious. When we picked up the boxes at the irradiation site there was a scientist and a beekeeper in the truck. (Dennis E and Dave H.) As a follow-up, (some years later) scientist/beekeeper Randy Oliver has a way of "innoculating" a colony so that it will perish with CCD. I think his site is "Scientificbeekeeping.com."

Allen,
I didn't mean to imply that all posters WERE equal, just that they are given equal time, I guess. It's a virtual world, if a little humbling.

One of the flaws in thinking on this site is that there is one solution, if only we could find it. We actually need several solutions. One for bees that live in truckloads of colonies, constantly on the move and another for stationary hives. It is naive to think that one could develop a bee in a quiet corner and transfer that bee to the middle of 1,000 colony drop-yard. As Allen will testify, it requires a different bee to winter in the cold. The sissy bees that must winter in Fl or Tx. wouldn't make it. These are the bees that are most popular for commercial use. In other words, the success in "not treating" may not transfer.

dickm

[Deamiter]

What does THAT have to do with the price of rice in China? It doesn't.

Money talks, and BS walks.

I gave examples of commercial beekeepers (Allen Dick, Keith Jarrett) who found what worked best for them. They funded their research out of their own pocket. They earn their rewards by using their product to make them money. Heck, look at The Honey Householder's operation. Pests and diseases are NOT an issue in his operation.

Review, criticism, and validation are subjective things that DON'T generate profits. They are the feel good fluff; popularity contest crap that is emotion based - and that doesn't pay the bills.

You also bring up 'how to best work with bee biology'. Once again, more subjective theory that is NOT objective. Objective results are what keeps the beekeeper's operation profitable. That is what works best for the beekeeper's operation.

I'm afraid I don't know much about rice in China, so I'll leave that for now.

I have absolutely no doubt that commercial beekeepers are making great advances in beekeeping in the pursuit of profits. As you say, there are beekeepers that claim to have no problems with pests and diseases, and if true, that's a great advancement! However, without communication and validation of the methods, those discoveries are worthless to anybody but the guy who holds the secret.

Without reproduction of a controlled experiment, you can THINK you know that a particular method is giving you great success and you can tell all your friends over a beer how it works, but it could be something else entirely that actually generates the results!

I have great respect for people who actually make things work -- I work with dozens of PhDs that have great ideas but who couldn't care less about implementation, largely because they lack the skills to actually build robust systems. I get that commercial beekeepers are making stuff work every day, but if they can't or won't prove what it is that is working, and do "feel-good crap" like communicating it to others, their hard work is worthless to anybody but themselves.

Maybe that's the way some people like it, but most beekeepers I know are far above that and would MUCH rather educate others than keep secrets for themselves. Researchers put much more emphasis on rigor and careful control of experiments where commercial beekeepers are primarily focused on profits. We need both, and the larger community of beekeepers can't throw out detailed communication and validation any more than it can do without professionals in the trenches without losing valuable assets.

Without careful scientists (degreed or not!) who validate theories and publish results, anybody looking for an improvement to their practice has to reinvent the wheel. Without full-time beekeepers, you lose the practical experience of what's worked for years, even if it's not always clear why or how things have worked.

Not sure why either group is dismissed by the other, or why it's assumed that beekeepers can't be both good scientists and profitable businessmen at the same time!

[Keith Jarrett]

However, without communication and validation of the methods, those discoveries are worthless to anybody but the guy who holds the secret.

Well, Mega Bee (Tucson bee deit) was that not funded by tax dollars then it comes with a Patent? Am I right to believe this is correct?

Nutra-Bee was field tested (survey) by the USDA bee lab (Jeff Pedis group ) it avg 5 times more brood than the other subs.

So there is documentation of private lables, and as far as being "worthless" tell that to the beekeepers that use nutra-Bee.

[Allen Dick]

One of the flaws in thinking on this site is that there is one solution, if only we could find it. We actually need several solutions. One for bees that live in truckloads of colonies, constantly on the move and another for stationary hives. It is naive to think that one could develop a bee in a quiet corner and transfer that bee to the middle of 1,000 colony drop-yard. As Allen will testify, it requires a different bee to winter in the cold. The sissy bees that must winter in Fl or Tx. wouldn't make it. These are the bees that are most popular for commercial use. In other words, the success in "not treating" may not transfer.

Tha sums it up nicely. IMO, these discussions would be more pleasant and constructive is we all tried to see how we agree and why we differ on some points rather than simply disagreeing.

Nutra-Bee was field tested (survey) by the USDA bee lab (Jeff Pedis group ) it avg 5 times more brood than the other subs.

That sounds physically impossible to me. Is it just how you phrase it? What exactly is "5 times more brood" and how do you exceed the bee's natural limits, which are often achieved on most supplements?

[WLC]

Most of the groundbreaking research that I'm aware of can only be done in an institutional setting.

There's no way that a beekeeper would have access to the types of resources and equipment that would be required to discover retrotransposons in the bee genome, nor would the average beekeeper have a clue as to how to search the Honeybee genome data base to discover that these are brand new discoveries.

Do you see my point?

However, there's usually some point where these discoveries can be applied by those in the field, like beekeepers.

Research scientists and beekeepers aren't 'equals', they are at different ends of a long established process: discovery and application.

[peterloringborst]

it requires a different bee to winter in the cold. The sissy bees that must winter in Fl or Tx. wouldn't make it. These are the bees that are most popular for commercial use. In other words, the success in "not treating" may not transfer.

Well spoken by someone who hasn't kept bees in the north. We don't use different bees in the north and the south of the US. That's nonsense. Bees have been moving back and forth for centuries and there aren't special northern bees and inferior southern bees.

The bees of the US evolved in temperate Europe and are capable of withstanding a typical winter up to a certain latitude. Farther north sheds are used.

I have personally run bees for years that were raised in Georgia. These winter just as well as mongrels from the woods. The idea that bees could acclimate to a region in a few decades is proof of complete ignorance of how evolution and acclimation work, most especially as applied to honey bees.

Furthermore, I personally find the expression "sissy" to be offensive, as it implies that sisters are somehow weaker than real men. That kind of talk is not welcome in a modern non-sexist world.

[Deamiter]

Furthermore, I personally find the expression "sissy" to be offensive, as it implies that sisters are somehow weaker than real men. That kind of talk is not welcome in a modern non-sexist world.

Wait, wherever have you found a modern, non-sexist world???

[Deamiter]

Well, Mega Bee (Tucson bee deit) was that not funded by tax dollars then it comes with a Patent? Am I right to believe this is correct?

From your wording, it sounds like you're trying to contradict what I said. Are you under the impression that scientists never patent their work or try to profit from their discoveries?

So there is documentation of private lables, and as far as being "worthless" tell that to the beekeepers that use nutra-Bee.

Not at all sure why you're assuming I meant all private labels are worthless, I certainly said no such thing! If their effect has been well documented and they're being shared, those working on the product are doing science. That's not an insult by the way!

At the same time, there are many poorly documented methods (using small cell foundation for example) that have been shown to be worthless for the claimed effect after careful experiments. If there's nothing more than a few claims of success by folks who can't be bothered to isolate a few variables, their success is as likely as not to be due to an unrelated variable.

I will never claim that all undocumented and unpublished methods are worthless -- they're not! I'm just saying that on careful review (by somebody doing science, whether in a lab or in an apiary), a significant portion of these solutions from the trenches turn out to be nothing more than a bad case of confirmation bias (i.e. seeing a positive effect that isn't really there because you want your great new method to solve your problems).

[Keith Jarrett]

That sounds physically impossible to me. Is it just how you phrase it? What exactly is "5 times more brood" and how do you exceed the bee's natural limits, which are often achieved on most supplements?

Well it was measure in CM, by the USDA Jeff Pesis group in Calif. I Will put up a attachment that has the chart from them that I have.

BWT, all subs are not the same not even close.

[peterloringborst]

Wait, wherever have you found a modern, non-sexist world???

In the scientific research community, especially honey bee research. Most of the top flight scientists studying bees in the US are women.

[WLC]

3 of my mentors (for Genetics and Bioenergetics) were women. God bless em.

But, what does this have to do with 'an ideal beekeeper's world' ?

[peterloringborst]

3 of my mentors (for Genetics and Bioenergetics) were women. God bless em.

But, what does this have to do with 'an ideal beekeeper's world' ?

I started this thread with the premise:

One of the chief obstacles, and I see this here at BeeSource on almost a daily basis, is a deep distrust of scientific researchers. I don't really know why this should be so pervasive in the beekeeping community, as most of the truly important discoveries that we beekeepers benefit from have been made by scientists.

So that is really the topic. Does the good ole boy network owe nothing to these tireless researchers, many of them women? You would think to listen to them, beekeepers invented everything themselves, made all the major discoveries, but somehow neglected to get the patents and somebody else got rich.

Ironically, that did happen to Langstroth. It was Dadant and Root, real US entrepreneurs that made the bee industry what it is. Later came researchers and educators like Pellet, E F Phillips, Anna Comstock, Annie Betts, Eva Crane, Roger Morse, etc. who made discoveries, brought research to the public, etc.

This last name, Roger Morse, was oft criticized for not owning a bunch of hives (he had a few) but he did more to promote bee research and researchers than anyone of his generation. The list of people who studied with him at the Dyce Lab is a Who's Who of Bee Research of the fifties through the seventies.

Now there are many great minds working with the honey bee. Dave Tarpy, Christina Grozinger, Dennis vanEngelsdorp, Sue Cobey ...

[Countryboy]

However, without communication and validation of the methods, those discoveries are worthless to anybody but the guy who holds the secret.

And the problem with that is? The benefits of the discovery are the reward. It may be nice and kind for that guy who made a breakthrough discovery to share their secret, but nice and kind don't pay the bills.

Whether or not you like it, we like in a capitalist world. Many folks are even greedy. That's life.

Without reproduction of a controlled experiment, you can THINK you know that a particular method is giving you great success and you can tell all your friends over a beer how it works, but it could be something else entirely that actually generates the results!

Yep, and scientists try to do controlled experiments. I hate to state the obvious, but beekeepers don't keep bees in controlled environments in sanitary labs. We keep bees out in the real world.

Maybe that's the way some people like it, but most beekeepers I know are far above that and would MUCH rather educate others than keep secrets for themselves.

Far above that? Are you suggesting folks have a moral obligation to disclose their discoveries, so others may benefit also?

Not sure why either group is dismissed by the other, or why it's assumed that beekeepers can't be both good scientists and profitable businessmen at the same time!

Beekeepers CAN be good scientists and profitable entrepreneurs. The difference is scientific beekeepers are funding their experiments with their own money, whereas the scientists are wanting to fund their experiments with someone else's money.

Nutra-Bee was field tested (survey) by the USDA bee lab (Jeff Pedis group ) it avg 5 times more brood than the other subs.

So there is documentation of private lables, and as far as being "worthless" tell that to the beekeepers that use nutra-Bee.

Keith, are you suggesting that nutra-bee was developed and funded by your personal pocketbook?

Am I correct in assuming that you tested nutra-bee formulas on your own bees, rather than testing it on bees someone else owned? You personally benefitted, but didn't tell everyone else the secret recipe, so they could experience the same benefits?

And now you sell Nutra-bee, and help support your family with the profits?

You greedy capitalist beekeeper...

Good job.

[Deamiter]

In the scientific research community, especially honey bee research. Most of the top flight scientists studying bees in the US are women.

... and you are claiming that a woman-dominated field cannot be sexist?

[Deamiter]

Countryboy, I am having a very hard time understanding why you come at me with such a condescending tone! I do not have a problem with capitalism, especially trade secrets or patents etc... Much of my job involves giving my company a competitive edge over others, and in the process I help people all over the world by developing technologies that make their work easier or cheaper, and are sold at the highest price the market will bear!

I have to admit, I don't see a benefit to such an attitude in beekeeping, however. The US market for honey is far above what US beekeepers can produce, and the dumping of cheap, contaminated honey from China where it is often considered an unwanted byproduct of beekeeping puts a huge amount of pressure on US beekeepers.

I have absolutely no issue with a beekeeper who thinks they can make more money by keeping their methods secret, or, more plausibly, by patenting and/or selling a method or device. No, I see no moral imperative to share secrets (wherever did you get that idea?) Sharing benefits the entire community (most importantly from my point of view, it benefits me) and encourages a culture of open dissemination of ideas. That's the whole point of patent laws, but I won't run THAT far off topic here.

I guess I just haven't had enough contact with commercial beekeepers to realize that US beekeepers compete with each other to the point that it's more profitable for them to keep any discoveries secret rather than to benefit from a mutual sharing of ways to combat all the problems bees face these days. That doesn't at all mean I don't understand or approve of such a practice -- the company I work for shares almost nothing but final products! I just didn't realize a cut-throat culture was common in large-scale beekeeping as you seem to suggest.