Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="UTF-8" |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Nov 2021 06:46:03 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Message-ID: |
|
Sender: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I agree with your ratiocination regarding the "chilling of the bees" to reduce honey consumption and perhaps their longevity through a long winter, a precise reason why the thought-provoking article was interesting for me. In fact, the chilling theory has been the norm, the standard practice.
If someone can document through a side by side experiment, using measurements occurring within the hive throughout the long winter, we all can ascertain as to which method works better in what condition. For instance, no one knew the core temperature of the cluster was the same whether or not the bees were kept on a screened bottom or a wooden one till the Wisconsin study came out. We *reasoned* that the former would remain much colder than the latter as it is exposed to the icy air.
The no upper entrance article, with heavy top insulation, has done a thorough experiment, and I am satisfied with its due diligence, as to what exactly goes on *inside* the hive with careful measurements, a very powerful demonstration that convinced me at least--a rebuttal to the "standard knowledge" and practice.
Remember what happened to the standard knowledge that humans were the only animal capable of using "tools" based on sloppy observations but a good ratiocination?
"Nothing that is so is so" Bill Shakespeare
***********************************************
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
|
|
|