Dee wrote: >>>So why cannot it be determined by simply going smaller
until a harmonous state is reached without problems
further?
Let me give you an exmple, Dee. Let's say that you were beekeeping as the
Dust Bowl began in the 1930's. Let's say that you began regressing in small
cell at teh same time. Lo and behold, the bees would eventually start doing
better. You could attribute it to small cell, but others might attribute it
to the drought ending.
Dee, I do not mean to question your work--I think it is wonderful. However,
my logical mind requires a few tests to confirm that the reason you are
successfully keeping healthy bees can be fully attributed to small cell. A
reasonable person could suggest other mechanisms taking place in your
operation (as they have on this List).
The way to put those questions to rest is to perform tests of your
hypothesis (I believe that this thread of logic has been gone over in this
List a number of times). Entrenching yourself does not confirm your
hypothesis. In the many scientific studies that you've read, I'm sure that
you've noticed that if, for example, scientists want to see if genetics
control brood diseases, they breed bees to go BOTH WAYS (less susceptible,
and more susceptible). That is a true test of the hypothesis.
The Mann Lake combs presented themselves as an easy way to test your
hypothesis that 5.0 cells CAUSE serious foulbrood problems. My guess is
that the experienced beekeeper would be, like myself, incredulous that the
hair's breadth difference between 4.9 and 5.0 would result in such extreme
differences, especially as the comb aged, and the cells became smaller.
>>>>As for then showing going bigger then re-creates problems.
Why cannot this be determined by simply looking all around
you, as problems multiply?
I AM looking around me in my operation. I'm using "standard" waxed plastic
foundations. My problems are not multiplying, nor are those in operations
of other beekeepers I know who have similar foundation. We're thinking that
our problems are decreasing due to better bee husbandry and the phasing out
of synthetic lipophilic miticides. We have less varroa problems, but have
not eliminated the mite as a problem yet. We would love to see that small
cell works--not as a panacea, but simply to reduce mite reproduction.
Dee, you are in a unique position to help demonstrate clearly to the
industry that small cell decreases mite reproduction, since you already have
an operation where mites and brood diseases are not a problem. You could
easily test the 4.9 advantage hypothesis in one season by performing the
experiment I requested. Simply insert five 5.0 frames into the middle of
several of your colonies, and report whether varroa and brood diseases
reappear. Your control would be several colonies with the same number of
frames of fresh 4.9 foundation inserted. This would be a small price to pay
in order to clinch the validity of your hypothesis.
Respectfully Yours,
Randy Oliver
Large cell beekeeper with an open mind
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
