> Barry Birkey said:
>
>> I did a cut-out this
>> year from a roof eave that had a first year swarm in it. The core brood
>> cells measured 4.9mm and got bigger in size the further away they were from
>> the core.
>
> If this is true, it would be a first.
Certainly not a first for me. I have talked with numerous beekeepers that
have shared the same experience. I have comb sitting next to me on my desk
that a beekeeper sent me a few weeks ago that came out of a bee tree that
measures the same. I will be scanning and posting the photos soon, on that
other list of course. You see, I am so interested in this aspect of
beekeeping that I'm looking, searching, asking others, investigating,
questioning, etc. I have found that when the desire is there to learn and to
be open to seeing things in a different light, it usually happens. Anyone
who's married knows what I'm talking about in dealings with our spouse. Once
we see these things (small cells in the center of a feral broodnest), then
we have to take the next step and ask the "why" questions and try to further
understand the dynamics.
> Anyone who found such unusual comb after so many reported finding only
> larger-celled comb would be well-advised take steps that would build
> support for "small cell" - send the comb and some bees in for examination,
> so independent and qualified parties (USDA or university) can verify this.
It's apparent you feel that only "qualified" people are capable of measuring
comb and reporting truthfully. I disagree completely. With as much
skepticism and distaste for this topic that is displayed on this list by
those with some sort of science background, it's no wonder why there is a
lack of wanting to give any helping hand to those in similar standings (USDA
or university). Let those wanting "official reports" do what it takes to get
them. I'm not holding out for any. If SC works for me, I'll be happy, the
bees will be happy, end of story.
I should say right here that I am NOT trying to "build support" for small
cell. That would be a futile exercise. The tendency is for anyone who
comments on SC, gets the unfortunate ride of being thrown in to "that group"
and gets a unique treatment. What Keith wrote was his own thoughts and
words, not mine. Likewise when Dee, Clay, Dennis and others write. While we
may agree on some things, I'm sure there are some differences too.
Jim said:
> The bad news is that there have been no "small cell" beekeepers
> sending samples to Beltsville for tests...
The "bad news" is that Beltsville has never asked or even indicated that
they would be interested in such samples. Your protocol is out of order.
They did however, according to Keith, visit Bolling Bee and write a
follow-up letter. That's a good first step I guess.
>> Why would these beekeepers need to do this?
>
> To move "small cell" away from where it currently sits, over in the corner
<snip>
> In short, to provide something more than unsupported claims.
I have no desire to move this cell size issue out of the corner on this
forum. It can stay there for all I care. I will reply at times when things
are said that I have found not to be true, or offer another viewpoint.
> And when research is done, it is dismissed as "wrong", "narrow",
> or "incomplete":
Yep. Here, have a read for yourself and then tell us in your view, how well
the study was done and exactly what solid facts are proven that we can take
away from it.
http://www.bee-l.com/biobeefiles/pav/scstudy.htm
> Then give the world the favor of something to go on that might help
> someone to design a decent study. Any "lameness" is directly
> connected to the complete lack of any sort of coherent explanation
> of the "small cell method".
If I was a swearing man, I'd make an appropriate comment here, but I'm not.
I'm nobodies water boy (except perhaps to my kids). You design a study. I
give plenty of myself and resources to various causes and expect nothing in
return. Maybe others have a desire to "make you believe" in SC, but I've
taken the position that it will have to stand on its own and I will merely
do what I can to give it a platform in which to be discussed. There is so
much to go on right now that all our labs could each be studying a unique
aspect of SC for several years without duplicating anything. I don't NEED a
study to help me decide what to do. A study would be nice to possibly help
explain some of it, or rule some things out, but it won't change things I
can see with my own eyes as I work with SC in my own hives.
> The world awaits an explanation, 'cause we've had a bellyful of
> random claims and excuses that everyone who sees no results
> did something "wrong".
Grandstanding and using generalities as this only creates more fog. Please
give specifics. Who is everyone? Results from what? Have you given equal
energy to critique those who have claimed no results, or is it just a given
with you that their word is enough without knowing all the details? I see a
lack of consistency.
>> We've yet to see any study that deals with the whole issue.
>> Most are just one little speck from the whole.
>
> Then document the "whole issue", so an impartial party can try
> to reproduce the results. Publish a list of people who are claiming
> success, and have them send in samples of bees, comb, and
> honey for analysis to prove that chemicals are not being used
> on the sly.
Are you offering your lab and testing facilities to do such a test? First of
all, I alone can't document the "whole story." I can only share with you
what is happening with my bees, in my area, with my management style. The
whole issue needs to come from more than one source. I have neither the time
or resources to do what you want done.
> If "small cell" resulted in even only half the advantages claimed,
> the world would beat a path to the door of the person who could
> simply write down "how to do it".
It doesn't surprise me that this is what you desire or need, a
point-by-point, step-by-step, well laid out manual on how to succeed with
SC, as reading over some of your posts to this list, they are written in the
same fashion. Maybe someday after it has been tested more and we get a
better understanding as to what all the dynamics are that SC create, someone
will be able to write such a report. Until then, the topics of discussion
here will most likely be those things that have already been proven.
On the other hand, the people that are "beat[ing] a path to the door" now
are seen as kooks and fanatics. Ah, I've been called worse, but I have a
goal and will keep at it till it's reached.
BTW, perhaps you would consider trying SC in your hives and report back what
you find. Of course this would require you to try something that hasn't been
backed up scientifically so there is a risk involved.
:)
Regards,
Barry
|
