Karen writes:
>You are giving away the scientists code here.
>
>  Interesting == more study is needed and there are issues to explore. Just
>  give us some more money and we'll be all set. And it usually means those
>  issues are not boring ones, but where if the research panned out, one would
>  be setting precedents (ie, you end up getting cited by future research,
>  preferably research where you get the funding).

I'd like to take a moment to point out that researchers do work on
projects of interest to beekeepers because beekeepers want the work
done. I have been involved in studies of screened bottom boards for 4
years now, on hundreds of hives. We have never found them to have any
benefit (no harm either), but we continue to study them because
beekeepers are interested in them. If we find a benefit then I will
be sure to report it right here. Such a device is easy to make, not
patented, and has side benefits (a built in moving screen). So, there
is no payoff for us, really, and it *is* boring (when you get no
results one way or the other). Tom Seeley (just down the road from
our lab) is doing the exciting stuff: studying honey bee
communication and internal hive organization. But isn't even in the
entomology department, he's in neurobiology.

I'd also like to describe what a properly constructed field trial
looks like. As has been pointed out time and again, if you apply a
technique or treatment to all hives in an apiary, and "they do great"
-- this means nothing! Oh, it means something: you didn't kill 'em
all. If you applied a treatment (or skipped treating) and they all
died, that *might* start to mean something! Anyway, with the screened
bottom boards, we put them on half the hives in each yard. The hives
are on stands which hold two hives, so we apply the treatment to
every other pair and manage the alternate pair *the regular way*. In
this manner, if there is a difference, we should be able to measure
it. For example, last year we weighed every hive and every super so
we could compare actual honey production on hives with and without
screens. (No difference.) Here it is obvious that there must be a
large enough trial to wipe out chance differences. If you have 2
hives and try the treatment on one, then again the results mean next
to nothing.

Last year we did screened bottom tests on four bee yards, each with
16 hives. So, if you are going to try something new, you have to try
it in a big way, *but not on every hive*! This kind of research is
*very expensive* so researchers have to *decide what has potential*
and what will be likely to be adopted. I think small cell foundation,
for example, has no potential since it is based on flawed
assumptions. I wouldn't care to invest in trials. I think it is
unlikely to be widely adopted because it would require replacement of
tens of thousands of perfectly good combs. Of course, if it really
worked, it would probably be worth it. But no one that I know of has
done a properly controlled experiment on small cell foundation. Your
average beekeeper hears such and such will work and they either try
it on every hive or else in a haphazard way. No records are kept and
no valid conclusions can be drawn. This is little more than shooting
in the dark.

Unfortunately, most of the easy problems have been solved, and the
hard ones that are left may require very complicated solutions. Just
hanging a pest strip in hives worked for a while. Just requeening
with an expensive queen has not produced sure-fire results. I am
telling you, some of the best minds in the country are at work on
beekeeper's problems. I suppose some may be interested in prestige,
but I believe most of them are doing it because they love bees and
care about them, and their keepers. Even if someone comes up with a
miracle, I doubt that will put them on the front page of any
newspaper. Even if it does, they won't be there long.



--

Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>