At the risk of beating a dead horse, it isn't "someone else's old work," it is work done by a world famous bee researcher, teacher and author of one of the best books on beekeeping, in its fourth edition. Also, many other researchers have worked on this, I know of a half a different dozen sources.
Not at all Pete, In fact you by example have lead the charge in what I would call "bad science" you asked for science and then claimed my work was not it, So lets go to science.
First of, you accepted the Paradigm, of it hasn't been done so it cant be done. There is a term for that, but I don’t recall it as Research pitfalls is not my bailiwick. I do know enough to know that to move forward in any area Paradigms must be evaluated and if possible discarded. That’s what Science is actually about, moving forward.
Second, you sought what I think is referred to as "conformational bias" you went to research that confirmed your opinion. Nothing wrong with that as a starting point, but it appears you didn't do anything to try to confirm my results. Your correct there are MANY who say it doesn't work, Cant be done, odds are low... etc. But that is what we do, figure out how to get past that hurdle......
In apparently the entire year since it was brought up last, you have not asked anything about my methods, or data, just made comments, you didn't call Andy, nor any of the Miksa's, or any of the other 6-8 people who are currently selling cells. You didn't ask for any references, and I would bet a bit of money you haven’t tried it either.
So in summary, you decided to pick apart my comments debate them if you will or as you put it "tear them apart" without anything but a bit of conformational bias.......
Not in the least taking it personal! I enjoy a good discussion, and query. Unfortunatly many watching don't view it that way. That’s where the quandary in how we approach the debate is important.
The book you cited was 1922, fine book, recommended reading! Printed when airplanes barely existed, cell phones and microwaves were not even a dream, and the thought of cars was still pretty ridiculous..... While full appreciation goes to those documents and background, we must move ahead. That’s my goal. Beekeeping is frankly stuck in the past. While other areas of plant and animal husbandry have taken quantum leaps, beekeeping is disgustingly backwards and antiquated. We nned to shift that forward in all areas of beekeeping. Figure out best methods and practices for all local areas, and share data in ways never done before, as well as continue marketing and development of both pollination and honey.
That’s not beating a dead horse, there are terms for it though.....
My thoughts are simple, Those who say it can't be done should get out of the way of those who are at least trying, if not actually doing.
For the record, the math is pretty simple, queen cells now run right at 4.00 plus overnight postage. Miksa has it dialed in so well he controls the incubation temps to ensure afternoon hatches, Postage on a box of cells is 90.00 so figure and even 5.00 each Mated queens are 20.00 plus postage so if you do the math, anything over a 25% success is money ahead, not to mention the time saved hunting the queen.
When you do hunt and kill before replace, you also end up with a fairly high number that don't accept the new queens. So rechecks and fixing is another time lag. The perk of cells is that is much less of an issue. Should the cell not hatch or she gets rejected, the old queen is still handy.
While smaller beeks may not find it handy or practical, many large scale beeks have done the math. Even in seasons where the success is smaller, it can be a very efficient method. May not be Science, but sure fits in economics and process engineering.
Charles
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
