Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 313
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    TORONTO,ON. CANADA
    Posts
    174

    Thumbs down Re: Small Cell Studies

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Get past your ego and actually go see an apiary and beekeeper that is claiming success using SC
    Wow, that is how you treat one of the most civil and knowledgable members of the beesource.
    Could you please erase my name from beesource membership list, and all my posts. Thank you.
    Last edited by MARBIS; 11-26-2011 at 01:11 AM.
    ==Northumberland County Beekeeper, Trent Hills, Ontario==

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    46,069

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    >OK well if seeing if it "works" is the only test you want, it's been done. You did it and claim few/no losses.

    Exactly.

    >What is kind of odd is that those who have success with small cell dont invite science to their apiaries and offer to conduct the trials.

    I have.

    >Why not take 20 colonies of small cell bees that are claimed to survive varroa, raise queens from these split the mothers 50/50 into two groups, plus their daughters, and conduct a trial with 50 on small cell and 50 on normal foundation? Four years later, lets see the results. Im not trying to say this has not been offered, and Im not trying to stir the pot, but if sc is a magic bullet, why haven't any stepped up and said, Ill prove it?

    So you think I should condemn half my hives to death to prove something I already know to someone who doesn't really want to know. i have offered samples of natural comb to scientists who claim that is not the natural size of comb and had no takers. I've requested to be involved in studies and received polite declines. But I have no desire to take half my hives and put them back in the environment where they all died every time I tried it before.

    >Get past your ego and actually go see an apiary and beekeeper that is claiming success using SC.

    I can't say what Barry meant, but I read this as addressed to the generic class of "researchers", not someone in particular...
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Chippew County, WI, USA
    Posts
    650

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    "So you think I should condemn half my hives to death to prove something I already know to someone who doesn't really want to know. i have offered samples of natural comb to scientists who claim that is not the natural size of comb and had no takers. I've requested to be involved in studies and received polite declines. But I have no desire to take half my hives and put them back in the environment where they all died every time I tried it before."

    You only have 40 colonies? I have always assumed you had more! No punt intended.

    Dont really want to know, seriously? I think I speak for most beekeepers when I say "we all would like to really know if small cell affects varroa"!

    If you took 20 colonies, raised enough queens from their mothers (80) to make 80 splits (each colony split into 5) and you ran 50 small cell, why would those 50 be condemned to death. Maybe the other 50 would, but other than foundation, and 10 colonies of bees, I dont see the huge loss. If you offered to fund these original colonies, and if someone would fund the rest of the project, I see opportunity, not loss. The knowledge given to the beekeeping world would be great. I personally think if you made the offer, someone or an institution would fund the research.

    Im not saying you owe the proof. I just have a hard time believing with the amount of sc beekeepers out there who are so sure that sc is so effective and others so skeptical of it, that there has not been on study or trial that I am aware of that backs it up. I think I would offer science the proof if someone would fund it or I had the resourced to do so myself.

    Please dont take this personal Michael, because its not on my end.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    46,069

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    >You only have 40 colonies? I have always assumed you had more! No punt intended.

    I might. I've been away for a while, but last I saw there were more than that.

    >Dont really want to know, seriously? I think I speak for most beekeepers when I say "we all would like to really know if small cell affects varroa"!

    I already know. So I should let 20 of my colonies die to show you something you could prove to yourself by risking the same number.

    >If you took 20 colonies, raised enough queens from their mothers (80) to make 80 splits (each colony split into 5) and you ran 50 small cell, why would those 50 be condemned to death. Maybe the other 50 would, but other than foundation, and 10 colonies of bees, I dont see the huge loss. If you offered to fund these original colonies, and if someone would fund the rest of the project, I see opportunity, not loss. The knowledge given to the beekeeping world would be great. I personally think if you made the offer, someone or an institution would fund the research.

    Even easier is to take 20 packages of commercial queens, (which will come already innoculated with virulent mites) put them on Mann Lake PF100s (or PF120s), don't treat them, but manage them otherwise as far as making sure they don't starve and doing splits so they don't swarm and see how many are alive in four years.

    >Im not saying you owe the proof. I just have a hard time believing with the amount of sc beekeepers out there who are so sure that sc is so effective and others so skeptical of it, that there has not been on study or trial that I am aware of that backs it up. I think I would offer science the proof if someone would fund it or I had the resourced to do so myself.

    I agree. The results were so overwhelming in my experience that it's hard to believe anyone could manage to make it fail in any long term study... but no one has done a long term study. They have merely put them on small cell for a few months and counted mites.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    "They have merely put them on small cell for a few months and counted mites."

    That is the issue. You can't expect the same results that you'd find in properly regressed hives.

    Why didn't they use existing small cell (and other) hives in the study? It can be difficult to compare any differences in the apiaries where they are kept. But, it is possible.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,419

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-beek View Post
    How would you know that SC was the responsible factor for survival? It could be less aggressive mites, mite resistant genetics,
    How would one know "CCD" was the responsible factor for colony loss? It could be a lot of other factors. That didn't stop researchers from actually going to the beekeeper and inspecting the hives.
    Regards, Barry

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,419

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-beek View Post
    What is kind of odd is that those who have success with small cell dont invite science to their apiaries and offer to conduct the trials.
    How do you know this to be the fact? I know Lusby's have had an open invitation to science.
    Regards, Barry

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,419

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldtimer View Post
    If you are so keen for me to see a successful apiary get me a ticket to wherever you think one is.
    I see my remark was not taken as meant to be. I was talking about researchers, not you. When I said "Get past your ego and actually go see an apiary and beekeeper that is claiming success using SC. They go and observe firsthand hives that have "CCD" to try and gather data." I was addressing that to researchers. I edited it to make it clear. Sorry for the misunderstanding!
    Last edited by Barry; 11-27-2011 at 02:56 PM.
    Regards, Barry

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    What if it has nothing to do with small cell, but is in fact genetic?

    "Three QTL in the honey bee Apis mellifera L. suppress
    reproduction of the parasitic mite Varroa destructor."

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.17/pdf

    Don't forget that many of the same folks who use small cell have also selected for treatment free bees.

    You wouldn't be able to tell the source of the resistance by counting mites.

    PS-Now the treatment free movement has genetic evidence for their claims and some candidate markers to search for. Congrats.
    Last edited by WLC; 11-26-2011 at 07:50 AM.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,419

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Bush View Post
    i have offered samples of natural comb to scientists who claim that is not the natural size of comb and had no takers. I've requested to be involved in studies and received polite declines. But I have no desire to take half my hives and put them back in the environment where they all died every time I tried it before.
    I thought you had said this before, but wasn't sure. I wanted to mention you as well.

    >Get past your ego and actually go see an apiary and beekeeper that is claiming success using SC.

    I can't say what Barry meant, but I read this as addressed to the generic class of "researchers", not someone in particular...
    Good, I'm glad at least someone understood it that way.
    Regards, Barry

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Menomonee Falls, Wis.
    Posts
    2,689

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    Barry said:

    Researchers need to get past their ego.

    I agree, go tell your Ms. Berrenbaum. I invited her to discuss my success with CCD three years ago, instead she got a grant which proved I was not wrong(different than proving I was right).

    Crazy ROland

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    That would be one of the authors on the paper that witheld the finding I was referring to previously.

    You're not going to get any help here in the U.S. . It's 'locked up'.

    You need to look to Europe, perhaps the authors of the paper I linked to above are the folks you're looking for. Although, I think they are more interested in varroa resistance than small cell itself.

    Email em. Tell em what you've got.

    Dieter Behrens, Institute of Biology,
    Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg,
    Hoher Weg 4, 06099 Halle (Saale), Germany.
    Tel: +49 345 5526235; Fax: +49 345 552726;
    E-mail: dieter.behrens@zoologie.uni-halle.de

    What's the worst thing they can say besides 'nein'?
    Last edited by WLC; 11-26-2011 at 09:04 AM.

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Menomonee Falls, Wis.
    Posts
    2,689

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    I can support WLC's claims. Most of the useful Peer review papers have come from Europe. Can't think of a pivotal paper from the U.S.A. Makes you wonder.

    Crazy Roland

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Volga, SD
    Posts
    2,790

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    Even easier is to take 20 packages of commercial queens, (which will come already innoculated with virulent mites) put them on Mann Lake PF100s (or PF120s), don't treat them, but manage them otherwise as far as making sure they don't starve and doing splits so they don't swarm and see how many are alive in four years. -Michael Bush
    This doesn't provide the control needed to determine if the Mann Lake PF100s (or PF120s) are responsible for their survival, or if it's something else. The point of the studies in this tread is to attempt to unravel if cell size influences mite numbers. What you've proposed was attempted in the studies linked in this thread. Those very studies are being blasted now as "not really getting at what was going on" with those bees. At the same time, mite numbers were not lower in those experiments simply from switching to smaller cell sizes.

    That would be one of the authors on the paper that witheld the finding I was referring to previously. -WLC
    The "finding" that you claim was not a part of the experiment presented in the paper. Nothing was "withheld," so far as I know. If you have evidence that the authors falsified parts of their research, you should present that evidence to the publications that printed the papers. Otherwise, please stop making these sorts of libelous statements with regards to things like this.

    Most of the useful Peer review papers have come from Europe. -Roland
    Odd, then, that so many of the Nobel Prizes in science go to researchers in the U. S. If you mean in apiculture specifically, I think you should go back and read a number of the peer-reviewed papers. Unfortunately, most folks don't spend a lot of time reading peer-reviewed manuscripts because of the technical nature of the writing in them. They're not easy to read.

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    46,069

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    >This doesn't provide the control needed to determine if the Mann Lake PF100s (or PF120s) are responsible for their survival, or if it's something else.

    There are plenty of plastic foundations available that are 5.4mm.

    >The point of the studies in this tread is to attempt to unravel if cell size influences mite numbers. What you've proposed was attempted in the studies linked in this thread.

    No. It was not. That was fully drawn plastic comb. There is no 5.4mm fully drawn plastic comb.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    5,079

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say that a fair study would include the following:

    Same type of frames/comb for both (wood/wax, wood/plastic, or plastic)
    Year 'round study.

    A fair study must replicate real world conditions, not simply eliminate a lot of variables. The study is after all purposed to represent some real world application. Real world conditions include beekeeping in every month of the year and for years in a row.
    Solomon Parker, Parker Farms, ParkerFarms.biz
    11 Years Treatment-Free, ~25 Colony Baseline

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    "The "finding" that you claim was not a part of the experiment presented in the paper. Nothing was "withheld," so far as I know. If you have evidence that the authors falsified parts of their research, you should present that evidence to the publications that printed the papers. Otherwise, please stop making these sorts of libelous statements with regards to things like this."


    Kieck:

    There's nothing libelous about pointing out that the EST, QW33, they correlated with CCD (their result) was in fact a marker for R2 activity in the 28S rDNA of CCD bees.

    They simply chose to report it as rRNA degradation because of ongoing research projects, like the Beeolgics RNAi project.

    You have a naive view of how peer reviewed research actually works. It's far more political than you can imagine. I'm sure that one of the reviewers, Gillespie, had his arm twisted.

    If they did report it as retrotransposon activity, it would have opened a major can of worms.

    For instance, RNAi for CCD would have been scuttled because retrotransposon activity in CCD bees would mean that RNAi was suppressed, hence the treatment would be ineffective.

    It also means that research on RNA viruses could be showing false positives because of possible RNA virus integration into the Honeybee genome (Maori's result). Which would make feeding dsRNA to bees to elicit RNAi mediated immunity a moot point (they already do it naturally).

    Finally, it would also give the location of potential lucrative transgene targets away.
    How could they sell out to Monsanto then?

    To get back to the thread: Small Cell Studies...

    The same type of politics can most certainly occur there.

    Successful Small Cell studies would impede other ongoing research projects, like hygienic bees. And, there's no real money in it. Small Cells and Natural Comb are dirt cheap in comparison.

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Volga, SD
    Posts
    2,790

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    No. It was not. That was fully drawn plastic comb. There is no 5.4mm fully drawn plastic comb. -Michael Bush
    I understand your position, and I believe you're right. However, what you stated in the post earlier was that someone should simply put bees onto Mann Lake PF100s (or PF120s) and watch them for four years. That's different that establishing an appropriate control group at the same time.

    But, as I understand you now, I think we're in agreement on this one.

    A fair study must replicate real world conditions, not simply eliminate a lot of variables. -Solomon Parker
    For the most part, I agree with the post that included this snippet of a quotation. However, I disagree with the idea that they should "not simply eliminate a lot of variables." If the idea is to test a single variable (which it is in this case), they need to eliminate all other variables between the two groups.

    There's nothing libelous about pointing out that the EST, QW33, they correlated with CCD (their result) was in fact a marker for R2 activity in the 28S rDNA of CCD bees. -WLC
    I went back and reread the three papers cited for discussion in this thread. I found nothing about EST or QW33, or any rDNA or retrotransposon activity. Would you be willing to find it in the paper of these three that you object to and copy it here, please?

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,622

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    We are into our holiday markets, so my time is limited....there is a lot to post, but it will have to wait.

    For those not familiar with Honey Super Cell (the plastic comb used as "small cell" comb), it is molded, fully drawn comb....it is not a frame with "plastic foundation", but the cells are fully drawn out...the bees generally put a wax around the cell edges but do not extend them much.

    This is not simply a plastic version of wax comb.
    Thermodynamic properties of the plastic are certainly different than that for wax...but that is the least of it.

    Cell walls are very thick...thick enough that 4.9mm cells have a center to center spacing of 5.4mm wax cells. If the density of cells and brood has any effect, they have been eliminated with the use of HSC...and let's not pretend that there is an intentional effort to separate the interior cell size from cell spacing/density for the purpose of testing "small cells only".

    The bottoms of the cells are flat, and do not extend into the opposite side of the midrib like comb does.

    The cells are slightly tapered (to allow the mold to release from the comb).

    ...and none of this is simply the difference between wax and plastic. All of these factors are introduced into the experimental group and not the control. This is exactly what good research does not do....introduce a number of unquantified variables into either the experimental group or the controls.

    You cannot dismiss the difference between HSC and wax comb as any kind of superficial nit picking....it is bad research plain and simple, and what is most surprising is that the researchers didn't seem to know this.

    I've got to get back to work....but will post more when I can. Mostly I'm pleased that it seems that a few people are reading the study rather than just supporting it because it is peer reviewed.

    deknow

    deknow

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Menomonee Falls, Wis.
    Posts
    2,689

    Default Re: Small Cell Studies

    I wrote:
    Most of the useful Peer review papers have come from Europe. -Roland

    Kieck wrote:
    Odd, then, that so many of the Nobel Prizes in science go to researchers in the U. S. If you mean in apiculture specifically, I think you should go back and read a number of the peer-reviewed papers. Unfortunately, most folks don't spend a lot of time reading peer-reviewed manuscripts because of the technical nature of the writing in them. They're not easy to read.

    I will stand corrected:

    Most of the useful APICULTRAL Peer review papers have come from Europe.
    The key word is USEFUL, as in information that helped me. If there is a US paper that is of practical value, please enlighten me. Until then I will be watching for European peer review articles, because they seem to write what they see, not what someone wants them to write.

    Crazy Roland

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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