Dee said:
> increase in brood, and increased mites from equalization
"Equalization" needs to be explained in terms that will
mesh with what is known about mite biology and reproduction.
Without a careful explanation, it appears to be ad-hoc
speculation in reaction to Ms. Berry's specific comments.
It was, in essence, an accusation that U. Georgia lacked
the basic in-house beekeeping skills required to identify
one or more robbing hives within the test group of hives,
which would be complete nonsense.
Further, while drifting and robbing certainly can re-introduce
mites to otherwise "mite-free" hives (Wyatt Mangum did a lot of
tedious mite counting to nail down this hard-won knowledge),
the reintroductions will merely start the formerly mite-free
hive at the start of the (near-exponential) curve of mite
population growth, and the mite population will never catch
up with untreated "control hives" that were claimed to be
the source of the drifting mites. The mite populations are
never going to be anything near "equal".
When Ms. Berry gathered more data, and presented a summary
of her final findings at SNEBA 2007, the previous ad-hoc
speculation was clearly shown to be baseless, as the final
results showed that a statistically significant HIGHER number
of mites per 100 worker brood cells was found in the small
cell hives as compared to the controls. Yet the "critique"
continues and talk of "mite equalization" goes on. Why?
How could even the ad-hoc speculative mechanism conjured up
result in MORE mites in the small-cell colonies than in
the controls?
Will the results from Amanda Ellis' trial in Florida, with
small cell hives and control hives in different apiaries be
the cause for new excuses that results from different
apiaries cannot be compared? All that goalpost moving
must be tiring.
> due to todays' artificial systems they are raised
> upon (IA and closed population)
Funny, I doubt that I've ever touched one of those
$500-a-pop AI queens, or a daughter, granddaughter,
great-granddaughter, or a great-great-granddaughter.
Same thing for the products of a closed-breeding
population. Unlike dairy farmers, beekeepers have
to put up with a significant amount of potential
"drift" between what the breeder bred, and what is
shipped by the queen producer, even under optimal
conditions.
Now if I am to believe that a queen that open mates
with whatever bees might be kept in the local area is
somehow superior to a queen that open mates with
drones from carefully selected stock, I'm going to
need some sort of explanation of how the local bees
are going to produce "more adaptable" progeny.
Aren't nearly all honey bees adaptable enough to
thrive from the equator to at least 60 degrees away
from the equator already?
> so you learn to let the unadaptable die, period,
> that man has created, instead of what will work
> in Nature.
Again, I fail to see how mating with my neighboring
beekeeper's hives and whatever swarms from his (and
[gasp!] perhaps even MY hives) happen to be in the
local area is going to add any value at all in terms
of "adaptability".
> So, so far with experiment being done by Berry, it
> is like said above, seeing what has been seen in
> past by many others
I find it irritating that a paper that has yet to be
published, with data that has yet to be reviewed by
anyone outside of a very small circle, is being
critiqued by people who have yet to read it and would
not have been asked to participate in peer review.
Those of us who HAVE seen the data and read drafts of
the paper have had no quarrel with the methods or the
findings.
Can't the critiques stop at least until those who wish
to critique at least take the time to read the paper?
Dennis said:
> They will spend hours on the computer criticizing what
> others have done. But they have nothing to offer in its place.
It is not "criticizing" to work at finding the actual truth
behind the extraordinary claims being made about methods
claimed to be key to colony survival. Such work is offering
the only thing of any value at all to beekeepers - hard data,
repeatable test conditions, and statistical certainty.
Making the claim "it works for me" is not any sort of
achievement at all, it is a puzzlement. If someone can't
explain what you did and how it worked, then they are
promoting a very dangerous thing - "faith-based beekeeping".
Those who attempt to turn the "faith-based beekeeping" into
"reality-based beekeeping" is not criticizing anything.
The effort is an attempt to create something of value from
the extraordinary claims, to extract some amount of knowledge
from the confusion and contradictory statements.
There are a lot of new beekeepers ordering starter kits this
spring and hoping to start a new hobby or vocation. The game
plan among all of us who teach and mentor new beekeepers is
to warn these new beekeepers abou "faith-based beekeeping",
and counsel them in reality-based beekeeping, so as to not
end up with dead hives and discouraged novices.
****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm *
****************************************************
|