> So in essence what your saying is that a couple of small scale experiments are right,  and guys who make a living at it are fools wasting money?  

No, that isn't what I was saying at all. What I was saying that there is a difference in the methods. One sets up a test where the results can be observed and the other just wings it. That's what I was saying, the way science approaches the question, so that the results have some value. In my field we routinely shred other people's work. Try not to take this stuff personally. 


Not personal,  But look at your response.  Instead of trying to understand the method so that you could "shred it" as you put or do any work to refute it,  you chose to simple refute  based on someone else's old work.

Your comment about "difference in methods" was right, but off target.  Difference in methods between science,and casual..  when the real "difference in methods" that matters is how and when the work is actually done.


If we are actually interested in debating or expanding there will have been questions and discussion.  Which as I recall is the point of this BB.  Some times here we spend too much effort refuting , and very little interrogating.


Geoff made the comment about doing it wrong for 40 years...  he does have a point,  there are those that blindly continue.  I myself have a few of those.  I used to blindly continue finding queens I wanted replaced,  followed by new queen introduction, and of course the follow ups to catch the misses.  That was the old standard.
 
I do have to thank Randy for that.  There are many things we debate and disagree,  but the one thing he has brought to beekeeping is the challenge of the standards. More than any I recall reading before him,  he continually challenges the standard myths and thinking.  That is a huge value to actually try to move this industry forward.

In this case Andy was kind enough to share something more efficient.  I to doubted it, but after some evaluation found it very dang handy if done right.  It doesn’t fit all times, and its not 100%,  but it is a good tool in the box for me,  and not a waste of time and money.


To Geoff's point, while we certainly have some antiquated beekeepers stuck in their ways, in today's commercial beekeepers that’s fairly rare.  Methods that are not profitable and successful will weed out the weak very quickly.   Margins are tight and expenses high.  Coupled that with varro and you quickly find that the ones stuck in their ways are quickly removed.

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