Hello Allen & All,

Allen said:
>Some of us need proof.  After all, this is the Skeptical Doubters'
Ooops-I-was-Wrong List, not the Anecdotal, I-Believe-in-Anything Fireside
Feel-Good Chat list.

 On the internet ALL positions are welcome. Many do not agree with my
hypothesis at times but then perhaps they might
not have observed the things I have in my beekeeping travels.
Dee has came on the list to share what she believes is valid observations
about her bees.

Does a single person on the list doubt after all these years she does not
believe in small cell?

 Certainly different hypothesis at times (not always) than mine but I
welcome her input and am realistic enough to know many new hypothesis will
never be either proven or not proven.

Very little of published beekeeping research has the high degree of
creditability I would like to see. The kind of research I like to see is
like the last two I referred to. Not because I posted but clear examples of
what I am referring to.

Burnside ( 1933 & 1945)
repeated & confirmed
Bailey ( 1963)
or
Barker (1973)
repeated & confirmed
Gergory (2006)

Dr. Keith Delaplane said at a presentation at the KHPA meeting (2006) that
he has ran bee experiments (with controls) and then a year later ran
exactly the same experiment and got different results. The reason he likes
to see the results repeatable before placing stock in the results as more
than an hypothesis.

>(Proof is not really that tough, tho', since we often settle for vague
references to second-rate, badly performed, seriously flawed, slightly
relevant, misinterpreted studies that no one has actually read as proof
absolute).

If I have learned one thing from the internet discussion lists it is :

Each side will put forth whatever they can dig up to support their side of
the issue. The subject will rage on ( many will bore of the issue) .

Just when the list thinks the subject has finally went away back it will
come with renewed vigor ( like a terminator movie).

Many will complain to the computer guru Aaron to restore order!

However in the end both sides will have put out their views and the list
will form an opinion on the subject. No winners  or losers.

> So who you gonna get to do it?
>I guess that what is needed is someone who believes your claims enough to
put in the effort to do the work (and be prepared to find the premise is
wrong).

I guess the spotlight turns on Bob Harrison. I have completed the assembly
of 175 new frame (25 lb.) pure beeswax 4.9mm foundation.( as I said I would
on BEE-L last year).
 I plan to run tests with controls of the above small cell. Both inserted
into the brood nest of a large cell hive and also package bees installed
side by side on 4.9mm and several larger cell size foundation.

If I like what I see at the end of the season I may repeat the experiment in
2008.

Results are a few years off. Took me four years of working with Russian bees
before forming an opinion.

 Many beekeepers ARE now using or converting to small cell.
 Dave Mendez (Florida 4000 hives)
Dave said  5.1 mm. this year and 4.9mm next year.( direct communication
2007)

 If small cell was simply a passing fad I believe small cell would have gone
away by now. Instead now Betterbee carries small cell and others are
stepping forward reporting good results.

I believe the small cell needs a real test. None at the
USDA-ARS has stepped forward to take a look so I will.

Compared to some of the testing I have done the small cell testing is simple
and easy to do.

Although Dee and I have not always agreed I have always respected the way
she and Ed have stood by their ideals.

 A couple points the list should consider as I start testing.

1. All beekeeping is local and poor results by me does not mean Dee is not
seeing what she is seeing in her bees.

2. My longitude & latitude is different than Dees & Dave Mendez. 4.9mm. is
correct for their location (according to Dee's map posted on beesource) and
5.1mm is correct for my location.
Sincerely,
Bob Harrison

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

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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