At 03:37 PM 3/29/98 -0800, you wrote:
>At 12:25 PM 3/29/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Hi Jerry and All Beekeepers,
>
>Jerry, I always enjoy your comments and scientific reports and appreciate
>your help but expect different then what I read here from any
>scientist...beekeeper or not.
 
>The continual challenge of any beekeeper's opinion because of the lack of
>science does not add anything to resolving problems and changes only the
>few with flex able opinions and in my opinion is the wrong path that so
>many scientists seen to need to use, maybe only to express their own lack
>of practicable experience or knowledge.
 
Whew!!  I knew it was too good to last.  Andy said something nice about us
in his last post, then took me to task.
 
First, I am not picking fights between "scientists" and beekeepers.  I was
trained by commercial beekeepers and have only been able to keep the
research going with the help of both hobbiest and commercial beekeepers.
 
However, I do muddle around in a field called science - that implies a
life-long addiction to a "systematic" search for accurate "facts".
Pointing out that we don't know the mechanism by which mineral oil kills
mites in beehives is not an issue of a scientist against the beekeepers.
It just means that we don't really know the mechanism, and the apparently
obvious answer may or may not be the right one.  But the oil smothering
notion has begun to sound like dogma; and it may not be right.  Those of us
who wear the title of scientist are trained to be critical of making claims
without solid evidence.  Is there evidence that oil smothers mites -  yes.
But there is evidence that oil may have operate in other ways in beehives -
i.e., Sammataro for one.
 
Scientists aren't saints.  We make unsubstantiated claims more often than
we would care to admit.  But we are trained to be critical, of ourselves,
and or others who claim to have the "facts".  My students have trouble
understanding why we write articles for journals that send them out for
review.  Each paper comes back with lots of comments (many of which can be
frustrating and upsetting), but every so often a reviewer hits on a
critical weakness.  After we recover from the criticism and respond to it,
we then get to pay a page charge to get it published.  Something the
journalism students cringe at - paying to get yourself published.
 
Anyway, I am wandering off track.
 
As per moving the bees.  No one doubts that commercial beekeepers know how
to move bees - and yes Andy I have moved hundreds of colonies.  No, semi's
can't roll through Montana at 85 (legally), although some do hit that
speed.  Smaller trucks often run that fast and don't get stopped - its a
judgement call by the person in the car with the lights on top.
 
I offered my comments for two reasons:
 
1)  Questions from beekeepers who haven't moved thousands of colonies over
a period spanning decades
 
2)  We were carrying loads across the U.S. with probes equipped to monitor
actual temperatures in the colonies in the load.  Yes, it verifies the
obvious - but even we were surprised about the speed with which the load
heats up if you stop, how little water it takes to cool them down if you
can get the water to them.
 
3) Most commercial semi's going between MT and CA don't stop, and many have
a relief driver.  But I think most states have a 10 hr limit on any given
driver.  Drive bees from MT to the east coast, and you either need a relief
driver, or you need to find a time to stop.  If you must stop, our
temperature probes say do it at night.  Skip that lunch break -   you can't
believe how much stress that can put on the hives in the middle of the day.
 
Cheers
 
 
Jerry J. Bromenshenk
[log in to unmask]
http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees