>There were "scientific" studies done by proponents of FGMO, but when
studies were done by independent scientists, they could not be duplicated.

The published S.A.R.E grant FGMO study done in Missouri was a complete
failure of FGMO. The varroa load grew during the treatment period and all
FGMO treated hives died of varroa load as did the controls.

> but value good research and dislike anecdotal evidence. We have seen too
many "proved" techniques come and go.

Exactly!

On Bee-L discussion there are not winners or losers. Both sides present
their
sides to the discussion and in time the subject fades away.

> I appreciate Bob's posts because he has the failures included in his
trials.

I have no agenda. I only search for truth. On bee lists I use kid gloves. In
person I am harder to deal with in a beekeeping discussion. Those on the
lists which have sat in presentations with me will agree I am sure. I have
put a red face on many a researcher when discussing beekeeping issues.

> Most of what we beekeepers do are trials, not research.

For sure! The Norway was more of a trial than true research.

 The post capping time research is beyond the range of most beekeepers. A
direct look into what's going on in those cells.

 Counting the PMIB (percentage of varroa in brood cells) and looking into
each cell to see how many varroa have reproduced is complicated research.

My friend Dr. Harbo has shown me the method to do both tests but so time
consuming I doubt the average beekeeper would ever attempt the testing. I am
not the average beekeeper.

.>Only Dennis has come close in the small cell world.

I also value Dennis M. observations. Dennis is not afraid ( as I am not) to
say "hey wait a minute I did exactly as you said but I got different
results!"

Most of us do not understand why when we question any aspect of small cell
the small cell'rs go ballistic.

>Dee points out that we need to look at the whole picture, but what we are
looking at is the end result, a beekeeping practice that is
successful.

Exactly!

Beekeeping research is complicated. The small cell group has given reasons
for the success which do not hold up under close examination. Does not mean
something is not going on in the small cell hives it simply means if ever
looked at closely by researchers a completely different reason for the
success might be found!

>Joe W's bees are more in harmony with nature and more productive as a
result of being on small cell.

Amazing what a couple mm can do for the hives well being right Joe?

> Which is why Bob's friend would throw out the Norwegian study because
ofchalk brood. It is a variable that can (and does) influence the outcome.

Exactly!

It is typical of the small cell group to hold up and wave the paper as
concrete proof of the value of Small cell. I went quickly back ten years in
ABJ and BC looking for a study on any type of beekeeping research which said
both groups were plagued by chalkbrood. I could not find a single study.

In fact I do not ever remember reading  a study published about a brood
issue when plagued by a brood disease.

Most researchers would not put there name on a study like the Norway study.
They would wait and then redo with another queen line not plagued by
chalkbrood.
Possibly why the Norway other beekeepers are upset. they realize the study
is flawed.

>One reason researchers like to keep their experiments small is to keep
variables at a minimum and be able to manage the experiment.

Exactly! When doing cell observations.


You do not need but only a section of comb to do a post capping study, SMR
or PMIB study. Period!

Bob

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---