BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jerry J Bromenshenk <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 18 Jan 1997 11:21:40 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (104 lines)
> >>Essentially his method involves using stips of common waxed paper
soaked in mineral oil.
 
> Good ideas need not be 'oustanding'.  If it works - great!  Would the
> technique be more acceptable it if involved some complex electronics?
>
> Eric Abell
 
A good principal of scientific logic is "Occam's Razor" (named after a
14th century scholar) - of several possible explanations, the one that
requires the fewest assumptions is usually the most probable.  I wouldn't
use complex electronics to control mites (who could afford it), but I
might use electronics to better measure the effects of mineral oil on bee
foraging.
 
However, the issue here is not so much as to whether the idea is
outstanding, but rather is it original.  Based on the information provided
to date on Bee-L, the oil soaked waxed paper does not appear to be an
original idea.  Others have used similar approaches and they deserve
credit for the idea.
 
Also, as mentioned by others on this list, mineral oil is a chemical that
is not normally found in beehives.  So this technique relies on a chemical
as the control agent, which is not what we were told earlier.
 
For a detailed and critical evaluation of grease patties (a form of oil)
and lots of other good information about Tracheal Mite biology, I suggest
you go to your library and have inter-library loan ship in a copy of Diana
Sammataro's Ph.D. Thesis "Studies on the Control, Behavior, and Molecular
Markers of the Tracheal Mite (Acarapis woodi [Rennie] of Honey Bees
(Hymenoptera:Apidae), The Ohio State University, 1995.
 
An earlier article by Diana, S. Cobey and others covered controlling
tracheal mites with vegetable oil (Journal of Economic Entomology, 87:
910-916, 1994.
 
As I remember, one of the first observations of the effects of oil was
made by Gary and Page in 1987!  Delaplane (1992) and Calderone and
Shimanuki (1995) also showed the useful of oil for controlling mites in
the field.
 
I know this, because their research was published.
 
Publication of research serves many purposes, including:
 
1) Dissemination of information
 
2) Access for critical review and evaluation (by everyone)
 
3) Quality Assurance (assessed by peer review).
 
4) Acknowledgement of original authorship.
 
Although some members of this list have expressed a dislike for
peer-reviewed scientific literature (deemed unreadable), peer-reviewed
is intended to assess the quality of the research.
 
Prior to publication, reviewers "grade" the paper for originality,
significance, appropriate design, and justification of the
conclusions.  Reviewer designate papers as acceptable for publication with
minor changes, acceptable with appropriate revision, questionable merit
with publication based on substantial revision.  The most difficult
decision to make or to receive (as an author) is to reject for reasons
given on the Author's Form.
 
The process is not perfect.  Poor research sometimes slips through, and
truly innovative research sometimes challenges the preconceptions of the
reviewers. But the process does provide a filter to weed out junk
science.
 
Like a copyright or patent, date of publication establishes authorship.
If you come up with a good idea, but don't publish it, the author of the
first published study will be credited with the idea.  Again, an imperfect
system.  But it is intended to protect the people who conducted the
original work from being displaced by someone who at a later date claims
to have originated the idea.
 
Publication in non-peer reviewed magazines or electronic formats can help
distribute information to a wider audience.  But there is no filter
regarding the quality or reliability of the work.  You have to make your
own determination, and these forms of communication are usually short
and skip much of the detail concerning the methods and actual findings.
 
Similarly, presentations at meetings are often so brief that it is
impossible to judge the merit of the work.  And professional groups vary
in how presentations are selected.  Some, accept all papers and posters
submitted.  However, most of the more rigorous societies "invite" you to
present after reviewing a written description of the research.
 
Like many of you, I am anxious to see a full description of the Methods
and Results of the wax paper/mineral oil control Method.  Perhaps it is a
rigorous study that meets the criteria of originality, sound experimental
design, and clearly significant results.  We can surely use more tools for
controlling mites.
 
However, I also ask the each person determine the value and uniqueness of
the approach based on your own review of the actual study (when it is
published).  In the meantime, don't forget to provide proper credit to
all of the people who started the original investigations of "oil" as a
control agent.
 
Jerry Bromenshenk
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2