In article <[log in to unmask]>, Aaron Morris
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Using outdated and unnamed sources Bob's conclusion as presented amounts to
>smaller cells is the proven answer because he says so.  As presented, it
>doesn't stand up.
>
>Aaron Morris - thinking because I say so.

I agree fully with you here Aaron.

There is a great deal of attention given to this issue at the moment but
there is a serious lack of real science in the current arguments and a
lack of both blind testing and peer group review. The range of authors
producing information is very narrow and when looking at the origin of
documents we find many common co-authors and references back to previous
writings of other members the same small group as confirmation.

There is some very peculiar (to my mind) reasoning going on which I
unable to grasp. I reckon we need some real serious science done on
this, and an end to emotive language. I was once rebuked (correctly) by
Allen Dick for using 'motherhood statements' (statements which strike a
favourable chord with the audience but have insufficient substance
behind them), and I find this whole debate riddled with deliberately
emotive terms and a plethora of generic statements about 'natural'
beekeeping.

This may be the answer we have all been waiting for, or it may just be a
coincidence, with further catastrophy waiting just around the corner.

I hope it is the answer, for several related reasons, but I am one of
these middle of the road kind of people who will go with a radical
departure from our normal ways only after it has conclusively been
demonstrated to me that it WILL work for me. At the moment it seems to
have a lot of people flocking to it similar to the mineral oil issue of
a couple of years back (what did ever happen to Elroy by the way, with
his total faith in MO).

It is currently PC to admire unconditionally any attempt to find
'natural' remedies. To ask direct questions aimed at a percieved
weakness in the argument is often taken badly as if it was destructive
criticism, when in fact it is usually a genuine request for
clarification of either method or reasoning. (This is an INFORMED
DISCUSSION forum after all, not a soap box.) Recently on the Irish list
questions being asked about the genetic claims were met not with clear
answers but more or less a rebuke for questioning the theory and
questions asked back of the questioner about their genetic reasoning.
This was not the point. The whole issue here is if the Lusby ideas are
correct. These other correspondents are not making claims so their depth
of knowledge of genetics is largely irrelevant.

I have had several e-mails and read several postings about this issue
which claim it is a great success. Unfortunately other postings
undermine this impression with (apparently) hard facts. If I still had
50% of my hives remaining empty 10 years into a control regime I would
regard the regime as an unmitigated disaster, not a success, and would
long since be out of business and my staff looking for work.

I have just acquired a number of queens from a breeder who claims
(apparently audited) to have used no treatment for 10 years and loses
only 10 to 15% of his colonies each year, despite having had varroa for
over 20 years. He does not need to use any resized cells. I think I will
give them a good try before I spend huge amounts of money on new combs,
because my belief (just a gut feel) is that the bee breeders will have
the right result much quicker than altering the genetic selection in
every managed A.m. colony in the world.
--
Murray McGregor