BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bob Harrison <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:15:12 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (59 lines)
,, SC Test 2002-2004 Nor,,,)

Dan said:

>I would not be too hard on the amateur researcher.

A good point but the Norway researcher is not presented as amateur work by
the publications. The work is amateur despite those on the list which would
argue differently. Over the weekend I talked to a couple people which do
published research and both said the research was flawed and should not have
been published without a clear explanation for the results not being
accurate and the whole test needed ran again!

It would have been OK to say for example:

These were our results with our testing of these two groups with chalkbrood
problems.

Instead the testers said. "both groups had chalkbrood problems but one group
seemed to handle the chalkbrood better than the other.

Both researchers I approached said if the chalkbrood problem had been  in
testing in a US bee lab the research would have been stopped and a new test
set up.

Chalkbrood can be a serious problem for the beekeeper! hives do not thrive
with chalkbrood problems. The simple solution would be to run the test using
another race of bee which is free of chalkbrood problems.

Poor beekeeping practice has tainted many beekeeping research projects done
by researchers!

To *recreate* the Norway experiment exactly I would need to set the
experiment up with bees with chalkbrood problems. Yes or no?

When the researchers were asked about the discussed "patch work" post
capping time research which they were familiar with they said to ask Joe &
Dee how they would have done the testing?
The test involved a huge amount of time and only a small section could be
evaluated. A whole hive could not be involved.

To be valid and accepted by other researchers research has to be done
correctly. SMR and PMIB research being done in Baton rouge involves sections
of brood comb exactly like the so called by small cell people the
*patchwork* test.

A member of the National Honey Board (Clint Walker) told us at the KHPA
meeting this weekend that the research the board paid for( against many
beekeepers opinion the tests were a waste of precious research dollars!) to
test FGMO showed the FGMO did not provide any varroa control.

I know the results will upset Dr. Pedro and others but it is what it is.

The results should be published soon we were told!

Bob

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2