small cell foundation

[deknow]

Well kiddies...I can't tell you all how much fun this has been (really, I can't), and how great it feels to be appreciated for providing analysis and references for you all...it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside (not).

In any case have fun...I'm sure you can all make a great mess of things quoting abstracts and such....remember...ignorance is bliss....and armchair beekeeping no longer requires that you read the studies on the coffee table next to the armchair.

deknow

[squarepeg]

does this mean you would like us to accept your analysis without questioning it?

can we not question whether or not the references you provide lead us to the same conclusions?

teachers are edified by teaching, by the challenges of their students.

if you can't defend your theses here dean, will you keep looking until you find somewhere you can?

[deknow]

1. You are not my students....I am not your teacher. If you want a teacher, either go to school, or learn to teach yourself. Is this really how you treat people who you want to send time helping you understand? Does it generally work out well?

2. Tell me what I should be defending....and I won't respond unless you are specific, and quote a statement I actually made. Seriously...you first said my book was missing all kinds of things....and so far haven't named a single one. Then you said I was making all kinds of "superiority" claims...which I never did...and you didn't find on our website, you won't find in our book, in the talks that we give, or in anything we say to customers. It's old. I've been helpful, I've been honest, and I've been forthright...and I've worked hard to make sure you all had references.

3. You can question anything you want (and you should). But if you haven't actually read a study (not just the abstract), how can you even discuss it?

[squarepeg]

1. my bad dean, when you referred to us as 'kiddies' for whom you are providing 'analysis and references', and 'spending time helping (us) to understand', well, it's sort of like a teacher/student thing isn't it? i thought it was working out well, you provoked a desire on my part to seek more knowledge on this particular subject. i'm sorry if my questioning caused you to feel personally attacked, it wasn't meant that way, i'm only questioning the conclusions.

2. specifically, i thought you are asking us to accept that the use of formic acid has long term deleterious effects on the microflora in the honeybee and the honey. if i misunderstood, i apologize, and if you can, please clarify.

regarding the book, i accepted your explaination as to why hsc isn't being used as described, and i conceded that i missed the part about the drone comb. again, my bad, please excuse me. i do have one rather important point that i would like to discuss that is not covered in your book, but it's not covered by the treatment free camp as a whole, and isn't only about your book. i hope that we can get to that.

3. not true. i read your kitchen table study in it's entirety, as well as the usda study. the part of the usda i referenced was from the 'discussion' section. believe it or not, i have read a lot of studies, and i know how to read them critically.

were you offended that i wanted to ask these questions to someone whose training, background, and experience surpasses yours and mine?

funny thing dean, my beekeeping practices are probably more like yours than a lot of folks on beesource.

i will describe my position as:

i am not trying to prove anything, nor do i think that i already know the answers are, nor do i have an agenda for what i want the answers to be.

i am seeking the best truth that i can find, knowing that even if i find it, it won't be perfect.

you are helping me to do that, but if we've lost that loving feeling, i understand.

[Oldtimer]

you said I was making all kinds of "superiority" claims...which I never did...

I think the practices of beekeepers that don't treat are superior to those that do.
deknow

TF practises being superior? In what way.

...in any way!
deknow

...

[d.frizzell]

The name of this forum should be changed because it is very misleading. The "unique forum rules" are a joke. It's too bad because there is so much to be learned by those who are "real" and successful treatment free beekeepers but so many of you just want to talk and not do. I'm sure now we will need to revisit the definition of success, with all the same naysayers posting. Anyway, yes I know I can leave, and most likely will. Very disappoined...am I the only one? I think not.
Donna
46N

[d.frizzell]

The name of this forum should be changed because it is very misleading. The "unique forum rules" are a joke. It's too bad because there is so much to be learned by those who are "real" and successful treatment free beekeepers but so many of you just want to talk and not do. I'm sure now we will need to revisit the definition of success, with all the same naysayers posting. Anyway, yes I know I can leave, and most likely will. Very disappoined...am I the only one? I think not.
Donna
46N
sorry this got posted twice....computer glitch

one more thing I want to add...I think it is important to tell customers about chemicals and dopes used on honeybees, a lot of people already know and ask..I make no apologies for telling my customers and if those who are treating want to tell their customers that I DON'T use chemicals...please do..I don't mind at all.

[beemandan]

The "unique forum rules" are a joke

I would have sworn that this thread was started in one of the general forums. Has it been moved or am I badly mistaken?

[squarepeg]

the unique forum rules should be deleted.

not that i think it should be open season on anyone prescribing to methods that may not be mainstream.

(unless of course, those methods pose a risk to nearby managed and feral colonies, and i am not alone on this. see post 241 in http://www.beesource.com/forums/show...ighlight=risks)

if the purpose of this public forum is for the exhange of ideas and information, for the advancement of learning and the betterment of beekeeping,

and unless those who prescribe to these methods have something to hide, or are unable or unwilling to defend their practices,

and if the discussion is kept civil and focused on the subject at hand,

then why should inquiring voices be silenced?

how is it possible to discuss the reasons for not using treatments without discussing the treatments?

if there has been a history of animosity here, well that is unfortunate indeed.

if the rest of you feel as i do, and are interested in advancing our understanding, then let's move forward, and work together to get to the bottom of all this stuff.

(unless of course you are satisfied that you already have).

by the way, my name is kevin.

[d.frizzell]

Kevin,
With all due respect, that would definitely be a different set of rules, and a new name for the forum. The problem with these discussions is that they go around in circles, at least that is what I am seeing here. There is tons of information, and I repeat tons! about treatments on other forums. I guess I can only speak for myself but I have made a committment to myself and my bees to not use dopes and sugar syrups. I have already educated myself on the treatments and I know I am not interested. Doesn't mean I will stop keeping informed about them. I want to hear how beekeepers are doing without treatment, I want to hear about their failures and successes so that I can maybe avoid their mistakes. I fully understand this is a long term goal and it will not be easy and I know it is not a one size fits all, but one thing I am sure off is that I don't want to use dopes, and I don't want to hear all the agruments for using them, especially when it is the same few posters all the time, going back and forth...it just gets old real fast. I don't need to discuss the definition of success, I know what my goals are. I guess I just don't belong here. I will stick around for a while to see if anything changes. I just hope new beekeepers don't lose sight of their treatment free goals from reading here.
Donna
46N

[jim lyon]

I have only chosen to respond to one facet of this discussion and that is the notion that only treatment free bees can produce pure chemical free honey. I know that it can be said elsewhere but it really needs to be pointed out on the treatment free forum since I would assume it is a big reason many choose to be treatment free. I appreciate Barry for allowing that exchange I think it is important and I made every effort to be respectful about my sentiments.
I make no pretense on being knowledgable about small cell, I read it with interest and try to pick up some ideas that I might well incorporate into my operation. So far I haven't seen anything absolute or persuasive to make me want to try to figure out how to incorporate it into a larger operation. Would I like to see the results of a trial similar to what Dean suggests? Absolutely but the results will only be meaningful if he can come up with a diverse group of people to also be involved and frankly it needs to include someone like a Michael Palmer and at least one person with a lot of letters after his or her name. This isn't to say that Dean dosent have integrity, I have no doubt that he just wants honest results but lets be realistic, the results would most likely be presented thusly by many: "Leading treatment free advocate proves small cell works". Yup, not exactly a stop the presses byline. Sign some folks up Dean and I will make a nice contribution.

[squarepeg]

understood donna, and thanks for taking the time to reply.

i hope you will continue to contribute to the discussion, and share what your real experiences are.

do you really think that new beekeepers might lose sight of their treatment free goals from reading here?

i haven't lost sight of that goal for myself, and i believe that not having to use treatments would be a goal for all beekeepers.

i think the discussion deteriorates when we arbitrarily divide ourselves into 'us' and 'them', as the unique forum rules do.

the reality is that there is a range of approaches, with those on either extreme, and the rest of us finding ourselves somewhere in between.

[deknow]

...and i am doubtful that the other references you suggested would convince me in the way that you are convinced of those detrimental effects.

...and you will figure this out by telling me what will not be found in the references....without reading them? Without even looking at them? The following is published in 2012...note that the references on harmful effects of formic acid on brood goes back to 1991.

Organic Acid Pesticides:

Two organic acids, formic acid and oxalic acid, are attractive options as varroacides because both are naturally present in honey (Bogdanov, 2006;Rademacher and Harz, 2006). Formic acid is registered with Section 3 approval in the United States under teh trade name "MiteAway II" (NOD, 2009). MiteAway II is a fumigant varroacide that is packaged in a slow release pad. Formic acid likely kills Varroa by inhibiting electron transport in the mitochondria through binding of cytochrome c oxidase, thereby inhibiting energy metabolism (Keyhani and Keyhani, 1980) and may produce a neuroexitory effect on arthropod neuorons (Song and Scharf, 2008). Fromic acid can harm honey bees by reducing worker longevity (Underwood and Currie, 2003) and harming brood survival (Fries, 1991)

...Repeated treatment of colonies with oxalic acid can result in higher queen mortality and a reduction in the amount of sealed brood (Higes et al., 1999). The midguts of honey bees fed oxalic acid in sugar water exhibited an elevated level of cell death (Gregorc and Smodisskerl, 2007....

Honey Bee Colony Health: Challenges and Sustainable Solutions

Chapter 14 "Pesticides and Honey Bee Toxicity in the United States

Reed Johnson, Marion D. Ellis, Christopher A. Mullin, and Maryann Frazier (These are all top notch folks)

Page 151, 152

[squarepeg]

thanks dean, looks like a great resource.

i'll be asking santa for one.

again, there are those words 'may' and 'can', and what looks like extrapolation of lab results to the field.

also, some would suggest that temporarily reducing worker longevity and harming brood survival might be the lesser of the evils as compared to collapse by varroasis.

i look forward to reading this book, i retract my 'doubtful', and pledge to proceed without prejudice.

[deknow]

...from the same book, page 214:

"...Not only do fungicides have suppressive effects on fungi, but miticides and high fructose corn syrup feding similarly have negative effects on bee colony fungal growth, particularly aspergillus spp. and penicillium spp. (Yoder et al. 2008, 2011) Other supplements such as antibottics, could also have a negative effect (Yoder et al., 2011, chapter 16, this edition). Consistent with the defense function that is conveyed by these fungi, bee colonies that have a history of repeated and excesive miticide (formic acid, oxalic acid) and high fructose corn syrup use typically show a high incidence of chalkbrood.....Our evidence only shows a casual link betwen use of fungicde, miticides and high fructose corn syrup, and a higher frequency of chalkbrood in such colonies exposed to these compounds."


Chapter 17 "Fungicides Reduce Symbiotic Fungi in Be Bread and the Beneficial Fungi in Colonies"

Jay A. Yoder, Drrick J. Heydinger, Brian Z. Hedges, Diana Sammataro, Jennifer Finely, Gloria Degrandi-Hoffman, Travis J. Croxall, and Brady S. Christense

[deknow]

i retract my 'doubtful', and pledge to proceed without prejudice.

What the heck do I care? You will either decide that you want to learn more, and will spend some effort doing so (yes, the book is spendy....but I've also given you the references for well over 100 published studies that are worth reading and they are free), or you will insist on only accepting what you are spoon fed or what you assume.


deknow

[Acebird]

I have only chosen to respond to one facet of this discussion and that is the notion that only treatment free bees can produce pure chemical free honey.

I don't think there is such a thing as pure chemical free honey but it stands to reason if the environment was not doused with man made chemicals there would be a lot less not only in honey but every food item we eat.
How does one treat their hives with chemicals and end up with pure chemical free honey? Doesn't make sense. How does one treat their hives with chemicals and end up with less chemicals in the honey? It is assumed that these hives would have the same environment with the exception of the chemicals added to the hive.

[squarepeg]

i think by now that anyone who has read my posts knows that i don't accept 'spoon fed' anything, and i have just reinforced my view that i 'assume' nothing.

i'll say again, i am not trying to prove anything, nor do i think that i already know the answers are, nor do i have an agenda for what i want the answers to be.

i guess we are both falling victim to reading more into each other's words than what was meant.

i only suggest that there can be honest disagreement as to what any scientific paper proves or disproves, and honest disagreement as to what any results may mean when applied to practice.

"bee colonies that have a history of repeated and excesive miticide (formic acid, oxalic acid) and high fructose corn syrup use typically show a high incidence of chalkbrood....."

were the parantheses around 'formic acid, oxalic acid' the author's, or your own?

[deknow]

i only suggest that there can be honest disagreement as to what any scientific paper proves or disproves, and honest disagreement as to what any results may mean when applied to practice.

Sure they can...but there are a couple of preconditions for this to work:

1. All parties discussing the paper have to actually have read it....not just the abstract.

2. Discussion must be honest...that means that quotes from papers, references, other sources, and other participants in the discussion must be qualified as to whether they are actaully quotes, or merely a paraphrase. Quotes have to be taken in context and in good faith.

For Instance, in post 225, if you look at where/when those quotes came from r _carefully_, you will see that:

A. It was stated that I was making claims that TF honey was "superior"

B. When I stated that I had never said any such thing and asked for a source of that statement, there was none forthcoming...it was at this point a specific challenge was presented to me to state yes or no, if I thought TF honey was "superior'.

C. My response was to question, "Superior in what way"? It could mean nutrition, color, texture, attractiveness to squirrels, purity, long term sustainability of the practice, in preserving the microbial culture, etc.

A laundry detergent can be "superior" in t's stain fighting ability, its effects on whites, its "green" packaging, its smell, etc.....to ask in what way is not a snarky cop out....superiority means nothing without context.

D. The answer I was provided was, "In any way"....so be it, I posted an answer that I feel was appropriate. When I was asked in what way I meant something I said, I responded with the same idiotic answer I had been given from someone that was trying to put me "on the spot" for something I had never said or claimed in the first place..."In any way".

E. After all of this, I reference the fact that I had been accused of claiming superiority when I hadn't...which was true (See A and B above), I hadn't made any such claims, so it was _then_ demanded of me that I take some kind of stand.

The result? dan posts a bunch of quotes in an effort to make it look like I've been lying. It is a dishonest fabrication that he presents...this is not an environment in which one can have a productive discussion about anything....let alone an honest debate about what goes on in a study.

We have not had an honest discussion here for several reasons. First and foremost, you have to preset things honestly. If you are going to quote from a study on formic acid to support your view that formic is harmless, you've got to address the conclusions of the study, which includes:

When formic acid treatment is used in spring, it should be taken into account that formic acid residue could effect the taste of the honey.

...kind of contradicts your "take home message"...yet you take no pains to explain why the study was valid enough to arrive at your take away, yet flawed enough to question the conclusions.


This is all long winded and cumbersome....but clearly there are more reading than posting, and I hope the references, the analysis, and the demonstration of how difficult it is to have an honest conversation about these topics in most circles....how quickly research will be hailed (Peter Borst was touting the Seeley paper for a year and a half before it was published...he's made no specific objections to my critique, but denies it has any relevance)...and how thoroughly it can be misrepresented....and how thoroughly it can be ignored....by people that have plenty of time to write, but little apparent time to read critically.

I've given a few talks called "the people's homework", that is focused on the how and why _people_ (not just scientists) have to read and study the research themselves if they want to be empowered by science. I believe in this strongly.

"bee colonies that have a history of repeated and excesive miticide (formic acid, oxalic acid) and high fructose corn syrup use typically show a high incidence of chalkbrood....."
were the parantheses around 'formic acid, oxalic acid' the author's, or your own?

I typed directly from the volume. If they were my own comments, I would put them in [square brackets]

[squarepeg]

dean, i was able to view page 214 on amazon. "(formic acid, oxalic acid)" do not appear in the text.

can you check your copy again?