> I will remain skeptical about Ferro Bee until it can be 
> really tested by someone

The testing has been done already, and it has been ongoing for decades.
We can safely say that the product has no impact on any aspect of
beekeeping, as we can readily identify a large number of hives subjected to
both "high iron" and "low iron" diets.

Many water supplies, both natural surface water, and well water, have high
levels of iron.
People use water softeners, and, for the case of brown "rust", sediment
filters to reduce the level for household use.
But it is unusual to run this equipment on cold water lines that go to
outdoor hose spigots.
So, in places like Minnesota, suburban and rural hobby-hive bees have been
provided with consistently higher levels of iron than their counterparts
where "soft" water is the norm, such as where rainwater is collected from
rooftops, as in most of the Caribbean, or where water is taken from
snowmelt, such as the Swiss/Italian border region.

But there has been no advantage seen from use of "hard" vs "soft" vs "rusty"
water in terms of the metrics cited by the peddler of Ferro-Bee, such as
"varroa drop".  No one has ever cited any advantage in terms of colony
performance, or in pests or diseases.  I doubt that any beekeeper would miss
a varroa-free environment, as I had one for years in the middle of the
George and the Jeff national forests in VA, and the difference is easy to
see at the yard level, even if one is not looking for the result.

I've hung around here long enough to see a number examples of beekeeper of
self-delusion, everything from "small cell", to "screened bottoms (as a
varroa control in itself rather than a varroa monitoring tool), "food grade
mineral oil fogging", to "powdered sugar dump-n-brush".  All of them may
have seemed plausible, and they might have seemed more plausible when
"tested" in "trials" that lacked the key factor of statistical significance.
But in well-designed controlled studies, all these techniques proved to have
no statistically significant advantage over the controls, (no better than
doing nothing, and relying on chance alone).

>> I told him what kind of data we were looking for to support 
>> his claims, and suggested that he run some simple inexpensive 
>> controlled trials.

I don't know who "we" might be, but it isn't "us"!  :)
A new phrase has crept into the vocabulary of research and extension people
who are so foolish as to interact extensively with their beekeeper
clientele, and/or with the newish breed of self-appointed multi-subject
experts without portfolio.  The phrase is "That's interesting, let me think
about it".  It is a defensive move, and it allows the credentialed folks to
avoid properly classifying  the idea floated as "wrong", "foolish",
"hair-brained", or "damn-fool" in front of the person floating the idea.
This did not exist prior to 2000 or so, as before then, beekeepers
appreciated being given unornamented evaluations by seasoned experts, and
valued the views of the research community above those of their peers.

But make no mistake - the anti-science and pseudo-science of the majority of
post-1995 beekeepers, spread by the confirmation bias effect of "discussion
groups" who moderate and censor, and end up creating insulated silos of
similar beliefs, combined with the confirmation bias of "search engines" who
find writings by "keywords", rather than by concept, means that everyone is
suddenly their own expert, and everyone feels that their opinion is just as
valid as someone who is actually educated and experienced in the area of
discussion at hand.    The beekeeping magazines help this along by printing
"results" only numerically better than "controls", rather than demanding
statistical significance using appropriate statistical tests.  They also
help by unquestioningly accepting claimed "results" from beekeepers when
they are produced at rates that exceed the productive output of entire
well-funded and well-equippent university research teams.

So, an across the board misunderstanding of the crucial importance of
differing "results" as being "better than the effect of chance alone"
resulted in enough misinformation to gradually turn "beekeeping" into a
hobby that one attempts for a few years, and then abandons in frustration,
as one cannot seem to get the inevitably successful results claimed by the
charlatans and the self-deluded.   To make matters worse, the constant churn
rate brings the charlatans new wide-eyed believers every spring. The sudden
disappearance of those who quit goes unnoticed, as they silently wander off
without admitting that the self-delusional and openly fraudulent approaches
did not work for them.  (Note that unlike with Bee-L, there is no cost or
technological/administrative burden in carrying thousands of dormant
accounts for the larger silos of like-minded drinkers of apicultural
kool-aid, and the self-styled leaders of these groups crow about how many
thousands of "members" they have, never mentioning that even a simple email
bounce test would eliminate about half.  Worse yet, they betray themselves
by mistaking any "member" as someone who agrees with their dogma.)

If you think that I am being too harsh towards people many who are honestly
trying to help others, I will point out that self-delusion is more dangerous
than the hucksterism of the charlatans.  One can see the profit motive of
the charlatan, and easily realize that selling is rarely a good education.
But the self-deluded will evangelize at their own expense, and without any
possible profit, which really confuses people who have no experience with
Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormon visitors who knock on the door, and want to
"save" you from your less-dogmatic approach to religion.

I am reminded of the words of Abbé Warré, who said in "L'Apiculture Pour
Tous" (Beekeeping For All) the following in regard to different types of
hives.  It is longish, but worth reading:

"It is not unusual to hear the novice deciding as follows: 'I will try out
two or three of the most fashionable systems, study them, and see which is
best'. But life is short, especially active life. Unless you are especially
privileged, you will not be able to reach a definite conclusion.

To test different hives, they need to be studied in the same apiary, under
the same management, with a minimum of between ten and twelve hives in each
system, over a period of ten years. Put another way, it is necessary that
these hives be in an identical situation and that they will give a true
average.

But after these ten years they may observe that a particular system is
perfect in winter, for example, and another is better in summer. They will
thus devise a single hive system that combines all the advantages of the two
systems studied previously. And they will study this new hive system for
another ten years. After this second study they may realize that they have a
hive that is perfect for the bees, answering all their needs, but poor for
the beekeeper because it needs far too much attention.  Would they then try
a new ten-year experiment? Could they?

As amateurs do such experiments, they get great satisfaction. Such
experiments have provided even myself with many enjoyable hours. Those who
wish to produce, or have to, would do well to avoid them. 

Of course, beekeepers, whether writing or speaking, recommend the hive that
they have chosen, or the one that they have invented, as they believe that
they have perfected it. But paternal love is blind. Beekeepers do not see
the defects of their hives. They mislead you without realizing it. One
passion drives humanity, namely vanity. Let us call it self-love.  But
self-love prevents the beekeeper admitting that he is mistaken in his choice
of hive, unless he happens to discover it himself. He will say that it gives
excellent results. And by force of repeating this, perhaps he will end up
convincing himself. And without thinking he is deceiving you, he will
promise you amazing harvests. In fact you will be deceived. It is also
necessary to recognize that sometimes personal interest guides certain
beekeepers. They do not want the competition to increase, so they recommend
what they disdain.

Hive manufacturers, on the other hand, will be motivated to recommend the
hive that they mass produce. It gives them more profits. It is not always
the best. It is thus better not to listen to anyone. It is just as well that
there is an infallible means of recognizing the best hive. Base yourself on
apicultural or scientific principles which everyone accepts and that no one
will argue with."
	

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html