Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 18 Sep 2001 07:02:42 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Pav wrote:
> Small-cell on the other hand, has NOT been PROVEN by science, therefore it can't be
> genuine.
It is not that 4.9 is not genuine. It may be which is why there are
several on this list testing it. Science looks for reproducibility. Just
because it works for you it may not work for another, mainly because of
all the uncontrolled variables involved. It might not be what you are
testing that produces the results, but some other factor. Another
beekeeper may not have that as a beekeeping practice, so fails. And that
has happened with several of the supposedly tested varroa controls
posted on this list. They were not reproducible by others.
Personally, I think small cell size has merit. I have spoken about the
"Hive that would not die", a colony on Dadant 900 foundation (I believe
it is about 5.0) that has survived under the care of the beekeeper I
gave it to while he continually loses most of his other hives. Since the
colony has probably requeened itself several times in the past several
years, either SMR is being passed on or it is the foundation.
When I shifted to the smaller foundation I did have less overall
problems with the health of my bees and did not lose a hive over winter.
I added plastic foundation with its larger cell size (in a trial of
three different types- I was the editor of our State newsletter), and
started losing colonies over winter. Because of all the other variables
involved- including Apistan resistance- I cannot say it is the
foundation, but I have removed all the larger cell size foundation and
my bees are doing great. But, all the other beekeepers in my area have
given up, so the isolation from varroa from robbing gives another
variable.
The key in all this is not that science has to prove it for you to try
it. We try new things all the time. It is the insistance that it works
when there are only one or two data points that raises warning flags.
And that is only prudent and has nothing to do with science. We want to
believe, but need to verify.
Looking forward to hearing how Barry and others do with their trials.
Bill Truesdell
Bath, ME
|
|
|