I'd like to weigh in on this matter. Finally.
At 09:45 PM 12/5/05 -0700, Dennis wrote:
>
>I'm not a writer, just a beekeeper. If I were a good writer, I could
>spend all this keyboard time writing a book and making a little money
>rather than doing this for free:>)
IMHO Dennis, you are a fine writer. Don't knock yourself, leave that job to
other people! Your style is thoughtful and your information is well
organized, and well presented. I always enjoy visiting your site. I find it
helpful, inspiring, and informative. You have clearly spent a long time
thinking, observing, poking and prodding, and you've figured out a whole
lot more about beekeeping than a lot of people even suspect is going on in
the first place.
However I didn't start this message just to lavish you with praise. I
started this message because I've heard this all before Dennis... from you,
as you dejectedly point out, at the end of your message. You want to save
yourself keyboard time? Don't bail on us! Here's my advice: Save this
message (er.. not *this* message, but the one you wrote that I'm replying
to...)!! Then, when (not if) the question of why no meaningful and
scientifically correct small cell experiments have been done, or how is it
that "merely changing cell size" can affect varroa tolerance and why can't
someone *prove* it by changing JUST THE CELL SIZE, or any other similar
question that seems to keep coming up here... then, you just dig up your
original reply, and post it. Again. And again. Think of all the time you'll
save :)
Eventually, people will begin to realize that it's not JUST THE CELL SIZE
that's at work, that it's in fact about a whole paradigm shift in
beekeeping awareness. Until then, this large cell/small cell controversy
will continue. I just hate to see so much time and energy being frittered
away by 2 groups of well-meaning and intelligent people simply because
they're looking at it from such different positions.
Maybe, when someone stops insisting on *proof* and sits back a moment and
says "Well... gee. There's *something* going on here... they can't explain
it (to my exacting scientific satisfaction) but.. heck, after all, bees CAN
fly, even though they shouldn't be able to.. maybe it's not just cell
size.. maybe it's got something to do with cell size, clean comb AND brood
nest structure.. and chemicals.. what about chemicals? Maybe it's not just
one thing. Maybe it's a LOT of things that taken together have an effect
greater than the sum of it's parts... maybe I should look into this.. maybe
I should keep an open mind about it. Maybe I should try it..." maybe, if we
all stopped and asked ourselves that (long) question, we'd be compelled to
look more closely at this "small cell thang" with an open and inquisitive
mind.
I'm actually the LAST person that should be writing this message because
I'm not a "fully regressed" beekeeper :) It's only my first year of
beekeeping in fact so I can't really speak from experience either, but I
have asked myself the very same question I just formulated above, and my
conclusion is the same: maybe I should look into this, maybe I should keep
an open mind about it.
I am basically a scientific type. I'm skeptical. I'm knowledgeable, I'm
reasonably well educated. I can think for myself and I like proof as much
as the next person. I can't tolerate sensationalism and dogma any more than
the next thinking individual can. However, I'm also willing to accept that
I don't know everything and that not everything can be explained by science
as we know it now nor can everything be proven by existing scientific
methods. Science is dynamic. Science can change and evolve as necessary to
accomodate changing conditions and new evidence. Can we?
There are many people practicing "small cell" beekeeping with all the
appearances of success. I can't explain it. Don't make sense. Would they
lie? To me? To themselves? Are they grasping at straws? Fabricating
evidence? Do they have a vested interest in their own perspective? Are they
nurturing a false hope? I'd suggest that it may be US that are suffering
from vested interests and nurturing false hopes. Rather than dismissing
them as crackpots because they can't *prove* what they're doing works or
because they haven't devised a highly controlled scientific experiment that
positively identifies THE ONE THING that they're doing that's different
from what EVERYONE ELSE is doing that is The Reason for their success.
Maybe it's not ONE thing. Maybe it's TWO things. Maybe it's TEN things.
Maybe it not just WHAT they're doing, but HOW they're doing it, and WHEN.
Maybe they don't even know why it works and can't begin to explain it. Does
that make it not reality?
Intead of taking the position "Prove it with a scientifically controlled
and reproducible experiment and THEN I'll believe you", why not take the
position "OK, let's ASSUME it works. Let's figure out why." I know it's a
stretch, even for me, but I'm game. I've got everything to gain, and
nothing to lose.
Is there anything to "small cell"? Is that really even a good name for what
Dennis has tried to describe? I don't know. Time will tell. I know some of
you have tried small cell and eventually failed to realize the benefits you
expected. I'm trying it, and I haven't failed. Yet. There's still time :)
George-
---------------------------------------
George & Nancy Fergusson
Sweet Time Apiary
326 Jefferson Road
Whitefield Maine 04353
207-549-5991
http://www.sweettimeapiary.com/
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
