> With the greatest respect, I must disagree.
> The Bond method is to "live and let die."
> ... It worked for Kefuss.
Don't disagree with me, disagree with Kefuss himself, who coined the phrase,
and even overtly accelerated the process of introducing varroa pressure.
Note that Kefuss now has the "Bond Method", the "Bond Accelerated", and now
even the "Soft Bond" approach:
www.natuerliche-bienenhaltung.ch/pdf/Kefuss.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/nolo2dh
Methodology redesigns are common in beekeeping when results fail to live up
to hype. Moving the goalposts and changing the rules makes failure into
success. Randy hadn't discovered Bee-L back then, but we had a very similar
situation with "Food Grade Mineral Oil" years ago - first it was fogged,
then it was to be fogged and left in the hive in saturated cloths or rope,
then it was to be dribbled, I forget all the revisions to "how". And when
the "how" changes so many times, it seems clear that all prior approaches
are tacitly admitted to have not accomplished the stated goal.
And what of Baton Rouge? What prompted the claim that they used any form of
"Bond" in the development of either the VSH or the Russian/Russian?
> I am not a promoter of the Bond method
You'll have to forgive me for interpreting "I continually preach" as
promotion, as that statement is what prompted this discussion:
>> Re: Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics
>> Fri, 7 Mar 2014 08:40:15 -0800
>> ...This is a message that I continually preach...
>> I.e., the Bond method does not need to be
>> taken to the death of the entire colony...
And the spirited promotion/defense of "Bond Method" as somehow useful, and
"working" in the discussion is contradicted by the redefinition of "Bond"
within this discussion itself, now redefined to be mere "survival".
> Re transgenerational inheritance,
> there are numerous examples of
> multigenerational temporary
> inheritance.
But the term "epigenetic" was significant in its omission in the statement
above. This is a very different claim from "I interpret that those proteins
are regulated largely by transgenerational
epigenetic inheritance, as well as genetic inheritance."
> If such regulation affords
> increased fitness, random
> (or nonrandom) mutations
> may eventually lock it
> in genetically.
I am highly doubtful that any form of "temporary inheritance" would coincide
by chance with a mutation that produced the same result. Christina? Can
you lend us a hand here? ("I'm a physicist, not a geneticist!", said Scotty
to McCoy)
An example: My mother was convinced that she was to "blame" for my Guinness
World Record contender freckle collection. She was told that freckles were
caused by over-exposure to the sun in early childhood. Never mind that I
had significant numbers of freckles in places that never saw the sun, never
mind that she had lots of freckles, as did her mother. She felt that she
had been a negligent mother. So, was this "negligence" in parenting an
inherited trait, or were the freckles an example of "transgenerational
epigenetic inheritance", perhaps reinforced by each generation in turn being
exposed to the sun too much?
Neither. Freckles are easily explained by plain old Gregor Johann Mendel
genetics. They certainly get darker and more noticeable as a result of sun
exposure, but that's about it.
***********************************************
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
|
