Allen Dick said, in a very entertaining indictment of the
entire concept of internet mailing lists and newsgroups
that should be included in the FAQ of every newsgroup
and mailing list on the planet:
>> For this and other reasons those who really know the answers often
>> can't be bothered to get involved in discussion, and although they
>> may make occasional attempts to set things straight, are normally
>> content to just ignore untruths, half truths and out right fantasy.
>> There are, thankfully, exceptions on this list, but 9 times out of 10,
>> experts just lurk and let others speculate and pontificate. Therefore
>> be sure to research the archives. Some gems exist.
...and Bill Truesdell responded:
> Interesting. So 90% of the posts on this list are opinion?
> Where might both your post and my answer fit? :)
> I think that the problem with the current discussion on screened bottoms
> is that there is limited experience by most in using them and you are
> getting experience vs opinion...
> The other problem is that the good trials I have seen are all in warmer climates
> than we have here in Maine so you have a practice that is in flux.
> Also, beekeeping is still quite a bit more art than science. And art
> does incorporate opinion, especially when it gets into new realms like
> screened bottoms and 4.9.
Its none of my business, but that's never stopped me before.
Here's a few opinions about opinions, and a few facts about facts:
a) OPINION - Writing about beekeeping is like dancing about architecture.
It is tough to communicate clearly without writing a Norse-Saga
length epic, and even then one is sure to leave something out.
I am blessed with excessive leisure time and an ability to type
this at 120 - 140 words per minute, which may explain my book
length attempts to contribute to this list. (It takes more time to
read them than it took to write them.)
b) OPINION - It is harder still to discuss practices that apply to mild
climates without contradicting many practices that are used by
people like Alan and Bill, who keep bees near Calgary Alberta
Canada, and Bath Maine respectively, where electric engine block
heaters, snow chains, and giant "Michelin Man" parkas are
"standard issue gear".
(Ok, I am exaggerating a bit about Bath, but I grew up in New Hampshire
and Boston, and am required by law to poke fun at Maine).
Let's just admit up front that honeybees are not native to most of their
current range, and people at the extreme ends of the range have a
much tougher and more complex job keeping them alive.
c) OPINION - Lucky for us that bees can tolerate a wide range of conditions,
but the downside is that one can be misled into thinking that one has
"helped" ones bees survive, when the bees survived in SPITE of the
conditions imposed upon them. To make matters worse, they can
thrive and produce a record crop, apparently for no good reason at all
other than God smiling upon them, providing one with false "evidence"
of "success".
d) FACT - But there ARE some basic facts. One of them is that successful
practices can be defined in universal terms. Some might dismiss this
as massive over-generalization, but they remain universal. As Alan said:
"Studies have shown that steady temperatures around
the freezing mark with controlled humidity and good air
circulation are the best for successful and economical
wintering of bees."
So, if winters are mild where you keep bees, you don't need to worry
much about the temperature, which is the crux of the "ventilate versus
insulate" discussion at hand. If winter is much colder than described
above one is forced to lean towards "insulate" over "ventilate".
e) FACT - There are some underlying principles that are simply not
subject to debate, such as basic physical properties of things like
air, heat, moisture and their interaction. So let's get it right folks.
For example, "moist air" is not lighter than "dry air". Warm air can
be "more moist" than cold air, but it is the warmer air that is lighter.
It carries any water merely as a payload. (I am speaking about
"at ground level" here, don't get me started about clouds...)
f) FACT - Most beekeepers are not scientists. I like to joke that:
Science is the art of infallibility,
perpetrated upon non-Scientists
Much that is "rock solid science" can seem to the layperson
be subject to massive revision without notice. Blame the New
York Times. The media loves "controversy", and tends to stress
the very tiny number of divergent views over the massive body of
solidly proven facts and accepted consensus. But it is unfair
and silly to dismiss all scientific knowledge as "theory" simply
because some beekeeper wants to demand proof in a beekeeping
related application. From my reading of this list, I can infer that a
beekeeper somewhere is chaining down his hives, due to a lack
of belief in the "theories" of gravity and inertia.
g) Some beekeepers ARE scientists, or engineers, or chemists and
other people who can "do good science". The mere fact that one
enjoys bleekeeping and has the resources to fund one's own
experiments and research does not, by itself, invalidate one's
results. Much like Bill Truesdell, I was delighted to meet
Mr. George Imire (the man, the myth, the legend), but it was
mostly because he tolerates no fuzzy thinking, and has a
presentation style most often found among marine drill sergeants!
The fact that he is a fellow physics wonk has NOTHING to do with it.
Now I'm not going to ask Mr. Imire to show me his notebooks,
but I am sure he has them, and I'm sure they support his various
"opinions". The difference between "fact" and "opinion" in cases
like this is nothing more than the tedious step of publication in a
juried journal.
g) OPINION - If I continue, this will stop being funny, and start being
boring and/or pedantic. (Or is that "FACT"? You decide.)
jim
|
