Seeing as you asked...

> I hope this isn't the archives!

You hope?  You *know* you should check, and didn't look?  It only takes a few
seconds at http://listserv.albany.edu/archives/bee-l.html.

A simple 30 second search for 'grapefruit' would have turned up 13 hits, a quick
scan of which seems to indicate that 7 previous to yours discussed the use of
grapefruit leaves as smoke for varroa control.

>  I can't remember the source of this report.

Maybe it was the National Enquirer.  Someone who misunderstood a news report?
The  local idiot?  A grapefruit grower with a leaf disposal problem?

Nope, luckily not.  One credible source was a talk by Dr. Frank Eischen, of the
USDA in Weslaco, Texas, as related to us here on BEE-L by Michael L. Wallace on
Thu, 14 Nov 1996...

"On November 7-9, the Texas Beekeeping Association had their annual
convention, this year in Houston.  On Friday, Dr. Frank Eischen, of the USDA
in Weslaco, Texas, delivered a talk on "Natural Chemicals for the Control of
Varroa".  Much of what he shared was news that we have discussed here on the
BEE-L.  He, of course, talked about the use of the chemicals that we are
already familiar with, as well as essential oils.  They have seen moderate
to good results with the essential oils, which jives with the reports we
have encountered on the LIST.  However, he touched on an aspect of delivery
that sounds very promising and was exciting to me.

Now I know there have been reports, recently, as to the negative effects of
smoking your bees, but that's what I want to talk about. They have been
experimenting with the use of various plant materials in the smoker.  I
can't remember how many different plants they have tried, but some that they
were most interested in were citrus, Melaleuca, Tansy, Cedar, and I can't
remember the rest of the list. There were about three other items on the list".

> Isn't it a mistake to discount new information just because the informer
doesn't
> have a study to back it up? Won't it make people with valuable information
> hesitant to share it if they're afraid someone is going to publicly ridicule
> it.

Well, that is always a concern.  Personally we try not to ridicule valuable
information.  To that end we defended Dr. Rodriguez when he first mentioned his
FGMO mite cure until further information was available.  We have a recent report
that his methods are not what he had hoped, but we did tolerate his expounding
them, sometimes at length in flowery terms.  We also give respectful audience to
David's unconventional theories on regressive queens and to others on other
matters, because we just don't know until topics are discussed and researched
further.  Unfortunately some people consider the routine and justified
questioning of their sources and methods to be an attack and ridicule, rather
than an appropriate and critical examination of the origin and derivation of
their thought.

> I have a hard time not responding to messages even though I have no source.
> Must you have the source to throw new information in the discussion?

Having heard about something is not the same as knowing about it enough to say
something in public.  A few seconds of research can often change that, and we
encourage people to quickly scan the archives and other sources before posting.

The mandate of this list is informed discussion, not casual chat, which is very
different. Everyone does not need to participate in every discussion, That would
be simply unworkable.

In any discussion, hopefully those with the best quality material will go first.
If they have, then you will see that in the logs.  In this case the discussion
of smoke for varroa control has been taking place over a period of years.  If
you have anything *new* to add, it is most welcome.

You may have noticed that this list is on a university server.  Ideally, content
should meet university level standards for discussion and rigour where possible.
Members are also expected to do some study in private in preparation for
addressing the list. Maybe if you were about to speak to 800 people at a
meeting, you would go unprepared, but most of us would at least check some
references and be ready for questions.

> And finally, what if a subject has been covered in the archives, does
> that mean you can't get new information from new beekeepers who weren't on
> the BEE-L when the subject was discussed the first time around?

We do *all* the time.  Many new ideas appear here.  Some for the first time.

The best procedure to earn respect,if you think you have something to offer, or
to add, is to make sure you know what you are talking about.  Do a quick search
and see if someone said what you had to say earlier and better.  If so and you
still want to bring it up, then it is a simple matter to draw attention to the
subject, or quote a portion of a previous post, and request discussion or
clarification of some point.  If not, then you can request details of the matter
if you don't know, or make a statement if you think you do.

Sources of information are routinely demanded in university level discussion.
The assumption is that if you don't know the source or derivation -- at least
vaguely -- chances are you don't really know what you are talking about.

Unsubstantiated rumours and hearsay have their place, but they are a pretty low
quality input in most cases, and have dragged this list into disrepute with some
valuable and kinowledgeable bee scientists.  We'd like to se that change.

Please do not get the idea that I -- or the people who run this list  -- are
wanting anyone to feel bad or hurt, or to go away.  We want a high level of
discussion here so that we all can benefit.

allen

-----
See if your questions have been answered in over a decade of discussions.
BEE-L archives & more: http://listserv.albany.edu/archives/bee-l.html
Search sci.agriculture.beekeeping at http://www.deja.com/
or visit http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee to access both on the same page.