> [what] Jim says....is exactly what Johnathan Lundgren said in his most
recent podcast [appearance, on the "Beekeeping Today" podcast]...
I am not at all sure we said similar things, and I am not sure I should be
grouped with Dr. Lundgren.
Not sure I want to be.
I listened to the podcast last night...
1) He was talking about the phenomena formerly known as "CCD", circa 2008
to "now".
2) He claimed that beekeepers (at ABF Galveston) told him that "the bees
are still dying" due to "not a bee problem, but an agriculture problem, an
environmental problem". Really?
3) He then did what so many others have done - he pointed to the problems
of bees and beekeepers as proof that HIS grand theory was correct, without
offering even a single example of how a bee would thrive better at his
farms, or why. ("Regenerative agriculture", sounds like a resurrection of
the permaculture movement of the 1970s. I was there, and it was anything but
"perma[nent]" from my viewpoint (tightening bolts on my windmill prototypes)
nor was it very "cultured" [as merely reading Pliny the Elder's "Natural
History" would have saved them lots of time and trouble]. Many claims of
"no-till", seeds coated in clay, and harvests that did not pay.
3a) Note that such maneuvers have the corrosive effect of waylaying scare
funding specifically appropriated to "save the bees" away from those
directed at actually doing something intended to save the bees, and into
things like [checks notes] "regenerative agriculture". While I am certain
that kinder, more thoughtful, mindful, and more woke agriculture practices
will do wonders, I don't see any of that getting the damn varroa off my bees
and out of my life.
4) He then demeaned other (presumably USDA, he was not specific)
researchers as disconnected from what happens on farms. (Yes, I understand
he was treated very poorly by USDA management, but there is no need to take
it out on his former colleagues in an attempt to differentiate himself from
them and the university-based folks.
5) He dismissed the "publication-oriented" system of advancement and
performance review, which is far from perfect, but needs to be understood as
a way of proving that one has produced tangible results of value to others.
6) He then commented on the fact that researchers who attracted their own
funding, rather than not, were viewed more favorably, neglecting to mention
that in academia, it has always been thus, and it is only the
government-funded researchers who need not "raise money". (Heck, even I had
to make pilgrimages to 550 Madison, and explain over and over that "R&D" is
what we are doing when we don't know the outcome, so no, I don't know how
long things will take, and no, I don't know how much this or that will end
up costing beyond THIS roll of the dice.)
7) And then, of course, the ask - "send us money!"
In contrast:
(1) I was speaking of the specific problem of varroa; (2) I was speaking
only about varroa; (3) I've never pedaled a pet theory using "the bees are
dying" as evidence; (4) I think that USDA researchers always want more time
"in the field", and do work very hard to gather info from those working in
the fields, and do a great job of being "practical" in their work; (5) I
think that the "published paper" system is the worst way to evaluate a
researcher, except for every other approach; (6) I think that good ideas
attract money, and bad ideas should be subjected to that stress as early as
possible, so as to not waste lifetimes; (7) I am 100% self-funded. I never
beg, borrow, or steal.
So, other than that, yes, we are in agreement.
We both very likely get royally pissed off on "Earth Day" at how little
progress has been made in... 50 years. In 2017, we had to have a protest
march "for Science". I ironed a lab coat so I'd look neat and tidy, and
carried a large sign I made saying "VERY Mad Scientist". This year, we
enjoyed clearer skies than anyone had seen in decades, at the cost of
uncomprehendable numbers of civilian deaths. Contrasts.
Also speaking of agriculture, today is 4/24/20, (USA date format) which can
be pronounced "four twenty-four twenty", having TWICE the Rastaman
numerology of plain old "4/20". A once-in-a-lifetime agricultural event.
***********************************************
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
|