BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:31:47 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (73 lines)
Peter Edwards said:

> Yes, but this was not a small sample from a hive.  It was dug out of
> several cells in a heavily infected comb - confirmed, although no-one
> would have needed it, by the NBU laboratory.  The cells had all the
> classic symptoms - perforated cappings, scale etc.

That's depressing.  Were the test kits returned to Vita for analysis?
If each sample was a "sure thing" (and it certainly sounds like they
all were), then Vita has some work ahead of them to figure out why such
samples were not resulting in "positives".

I agree that beekeeping does not need something that provides
spotty results.  We need INTEGRATED Pest Management, not INTERMITTENT
Pest Management.  :)

>> Chemistry is repeatable".

> Not in this case!

  Quality/purity issue?
  Shelf life or handling issue?
  Exposure to extremes of temperature in shipment?
  A packaging problem?

Any of the above I'd believe, but chemistry IS repeatable.  That's why the
term "litmus test" is now part of the common vernacular.

> So observation is no longer part of science?

Without objective criteria and a consensus on what objective
criteria are critical, you don't really have "observation".
You have more of the parable of the "blind men and the elephant"
than anything that might be able to get into the parties thrown
by scientists, where hard liquor is served, and women of legal age
are in attendance.  The complete lack of a consensus on objective
criteria is the basic problem behind the discussion in this thread
about "diagnosis" of EFB and AFB.

> Isn't it the problem that nothing is perfect out of the box any longer?

Nothing ever really was.
Nothing ever really is.
It has always been thus.
It shall always be thus.

Even if one makes something "perfect", somebody is sure to complain
about some aspect, and blame "the design".  But don't DARE to ever
ask anyone to read the instructions, as everyone expects everything
to be designed to be intuitively obvious, foolproof, and fail-safe.
(But I'm NOT claiming that this was the case in the test kit at issue!)

We have all become much more demanding, pampered, and intolerant than
we were only a few decades ago.  Consider your own childhood.  No car
airbags, no seatbelts, no child-safety seats, no bike helmets, playgrounds
of gravel or cinders, soccer games without shin pads, and, lest we forget,
Lawn Darts!  In light of current "standard" precautions that are backed by
laws and fines, it should be a miracle that any of us lived to adulthood.

> There is, increasingly, the tendency to 'trial' rather than take the
> trouble to get things right first time

Well, were the samples provided part of a "trial", or "beta test",
or is the product in "general availability", and in stock at bee
supply houses?


                        jim

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ATOM RSS1 RSS2