# Survival of a commercial beekeeper in Norway



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

Thanks Barry!
Waya


----------



## Tors (Jan 6, 2006)

Great post and read "bwranglers" site too if you hav'nt done so already.

[ September 15, 2006, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Tors ]


----------



## suprstakr (Feb 10, 2006)

GREAT POST
Thank You


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Here is a copy of the article with pics and graphs depecting some test results that I sent to Erik last year for his records.

COMMERCIAL BEEKEEPING IN NORWAY.DOC.pdf 

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/FeralBeeProject/files/Small%20Cell%20Information/


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Joe

I'd like to read it but the link wants login info

Dave


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Drobbins, It's on the feral bee project site. Not sure, you might have to join to view it.

Or I could put in on organic beekeepers site. Are you a member of the organics site?

Or I could email it to you if the file isn;t too large.

[email protected]


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

This article will soon be posted on Erik's POV site with pictures soon.

http://www.beesource.com/pov/osterlund/index.htm

[ September 16, 2006, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Barry ]


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Thanks Barry

Joe, if you don't mind, send it to drobbins at drobbins dot net
my mail server will accept large attachments

Dave


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Ok Dave, it's in the mail

Joe

[ September 16, 2006, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## louis1st (Oct 17, 2004)

I have read some articles before about the elgon bee, and understood this bee as being not so good after all...

Is it a good bee or not? what do you think?


----------



## Reiner Schwarz (Oct 2, 2006)

Hi Louis,

Bad or good, this is quite a subjective way of viewing, isn't it? All i can say about "Elgon-Bees" is, that they are thrieving very good here in Southern Germany! Next year we will have a line of Bees with Elgon heritage as drone colonies on our mating station. 

They are gentle, very healthy and most of them are building small cell foundations very well without regressing. The honey yield is as good as at other good Buckfast-Bees. Never had any diseases! They are quite resistant to varroa, when there is no re-invasion, what is happening very often in our region because of a very high count of colonies in the surrounding areas. Scientists stated, that we have a very much viruses in our colonies (where are they coming from?). This might be the main difference between the situation in Norway or Bornholm an in other regions of the world. So if you are on an "lonely island" you might have a big chance to get resistant colonies.

Best regards
Reiner


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Reiner Schwarz,

Welcome to Beesource and thank you for the information. Where do your bees come from? have they been cross bred with the Buckfast lines? What is the temperament of the Elgons that you are using?


----------



## Reiner Schwarz (Oct 2, 2006)

Hello Aspera,

thanks for the warm welcome! We got some queens directly from Erik Österlund during the last years. the offspring has been crossen with Buckfast lines or with other Elgon lines. We never got somehow aggressive bees! My current breeder, you can call it a "Elgon-F3", is the most gentle bee i ever had! It has been crossed with lines of Buckfast Bees which are thrievng good in Bavaria. So we got a really excellent bee, calm and no tendency to swarm. It's near to my breeding goal, a "alone bee", which means only adding honey supers or replacing them with empty ones 

The temperament of the "Original-Elgons" was not so gentle, but never aggressive. On a scale from 1 to 6, they were a 4 or 5 (when 6 is nest). The colour varies between a quite dark yellow an the appearance of a light italian bee. Propolis is collected in very different amounts.

A collegue is crossing Elgons with Primorskys (and vice versa) and never treated any colonies since years ago. He has a overwintering quota of 70%, which is quite a very good result here in Germany.

Regards
Reiner


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I finished Hans-Otto's article:

http://www.beesource.com/pov/johnsen/


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Isn't this the article that raised all the ruckus
due to a dispute over what was to be published
as part of a cohesvie study, versus the results
from only one (of many) participants in that study?

And has anyone heard anything about the study?


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

Jim,
That's what I seem to remember... a premature release wasn't it? 
Waya


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Jim, This was a study conducted by Hans-Otto Johnsen, and his results are recorded in the article. What was explained to me by a close friend of Hans-Otto is that Hans said: "these colonies were his colonies and not part of any such other study". 

Maybe the reason no one has heard of the other phantom ghost study is probably because it does not exist.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--That's what I seem to remember... a premature release wasn't it? 

Well, this is what the large cell advocates are saying.

But as we know, there are two sides to every story.









[ October 10, 2006, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

quote from story:

"Both groups were effected by chalkbrood" 

Which makes the study & results suspect to many of us.

Holding up results from testing which had hives with chalkbrood would only gain interest on the internet.

Chalkbrood problems are usually solved by requeening with a line of bees not effected by chalkbrood.

Efforts to free a line of chalkbrood without bringing in outside genetics has never been very successful.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> "these colonies were his colonies and not 
> part of any such other study".

Gee, that was not what was claimed when the
rukus started, not at all. It would have been
an excellent excuse/defense if it was offered
as an excuse/defense at the time. It seems that
there is some revisionist history being created
there.









> Maybe the reason no one has heard of the 
> other phantom ghost study is probably because 
> it does not exist. 

I assure you that the study was real, wide scale,
and well-designed. 

Sadly, the overall results were said to 
contradict the published claims of Hans-Otto 
Johnsen, who was said to only been gathering such 
data for the study, and said to have agreed to 
cooperate with the goals of the study, which 
would include not publishing results from one 
apiary, moreso merely because one did not like 
the overall trends revealed from many apiaries.

So, I'll ask again... anyone *KNOW*
where the actual study stands in regard to publication? 

(Of course, asking about legitimate
science on BeeSource is rather like asking
members of the KKK to hold that burning cross
still for a moment so you can read them an
interesting passage from a book by Malcom X.)


----------



## Alienor (Mar 16, 2005)

I just know about two new german studies which are in publishing for end 2006.
One is a diploma work and the other a work for a Dr. degree.
The professor who guided both said that both show a significant effect of SC on varroa.
The statistics are scientifically secured.
They will be published at the University of Hannover.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--quote from story:
"Both groups were effected by chalkbrood" 
Which makes the study & results suspect to many of us.-(Rob)

Yes, both groups, that makes it an equal playing field.

I dont know about you, but I would rater have the test done under real world conditions than in some clean room at some lab.

--Chalkbrood problems are usually solved by requeening with a line of bees not effected by chalkbrood.-(Rob)

Not in my experience. More often than not, chalk brood is caused by frame manipulation. During regressing and inserting frames and rearranging brood, chalkbood will sometimes pop up. IMO, that is showed in both groups reinforces that both groups were treated equally.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I assure you that the study was real, wide scale, and well-designed.--(Fischer)

And not a trace of its existence remains? Maybe abducted by aliens?









This is the double standard many have in the large cell community. You continue to demand facts from others when stating their side, and you continue to back your side with 
I assure yous


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

This little debate has peaked my interest, so Jim, care to prove Joe wrong in what he just made very plain for all, and actually provide us with the study you assure us is there? I'd be happy to include it so as not to be accused of being one sided.

- Barry


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Joe,
"Hope we can agree to disagree"

When you run experiments with the intent of proving a point to the beekeeping world then the experiment needs to be free of chalkbrood, AFB, EFB, etc. to get our attention.

Saying both groups had equal amounts of chalkbrood is a feeble excuse.

One reason you do not see many researchers on the internet beekeeping talk lists. 

Like I said when the report was first published it only raised more questions than it answered.

My statement on chalkbrood has been universally accepted the world over. When you get some concrete proof about your chalkbrood theory in tests run with controls (not rocket science) then I will take a look.

I don't mean to be blunt on the issue Joe and over the years we do agree on more points than we disagree on.

Would Marla Spivak, Sue Cobey , Tom Rinderer or Dr. Harris put their name on a study like done in Norway. I don't think so. 

Also most would have run another study to confirm the results. 

Dr. Delaplane was showing slides of some studies he did over the last few years and one study got the opposite result the second time around and he has yet to figure out why. Keith spoke at the KHPA fall meeting last week.

In truth I trust the testing I do MYSELF the most!

Especially if a new product is involved intended to make a company or person money. 

Drug companies are caught time and time again using their rigged testing to get drugs released to the public.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

>In truth I trust the testing I do MYSELF the most!

Yikes! Don't tell Jim you said this! That cuts against all scientific protocol and puts Beesource on par with The Home Shopping network.

- Barry


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Hey! No Fair! 

Now even a moderator, Barry himself, feels free 
to drag me (by reference) into an argument about
a mere side issue. 

I'm not sure I agree with Bob's somewhat 
over-simplified position, given that the study
at hand had nothing to do with chalkbrood, and
lots of hives get a little chalkbrood now and
then without any serious or permanent impact
resulting.

But dismissing any/all work Bob might do as
"unscientific" is also an over-simplification,
and a tad unfair to Bob, who, like anyone else,
is perfectly capable of doing publishable work
if he were so inclined.

And no, BeeSource is not like HSN... it is
more like the WWF!!!


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Jim, care to prove Joe wrong in what he just 
> made very plain for all, 

Gee Barry, thanks for taking the signal to
noise ratio to a new low!









What did Joe "make plain for all", except that
he does not read _Bee Culture_, where the
article you reprinted was actually published, 
and where the objections were raised by the
national beekeeping organization running the
nationwide study?

> and actually provide 
> us with the study you assure us is there? 

Quit the baiting, Barry, it is tiresome.
You know perfectly well that I _asked_ what
the status of the study was in terms of the
pending publication in a journal, so it is
obvious that I myself do not know the status.

> I'd be happy to include it so as not to be 
> accused of being one sided.

I can pass along your request to Kim Flottum
who can verify that he caught all kinds of 
flack from the national (Norweigan) beekeeping 
organization that objected to the "premature 
publication of a misleading subset of the study 
results", but I hesitate to do so.

I'm not sure that I should bring his attention 
to your reprinting of entire articles from his 
magazine, as I am not sure you have "publication 
rights", and I'm pretty sure that your use is not
covered under "fair use", as it simply reprints 
the entire article.

Regardless the Norwegans would not have been angry
at Kim over a non-existent study, now would they?

I had hoped that someone was in contact with
someone "in country". Guess not, so we will
all have to wait for a pre-print or publication,
Joe and Barry's laughable claims to the 
contrary.

And when it IS published, it will be ignored
or dismissed by the faithful small cell 
advocates, as it appears that the total
dataset does not show the results that the
"small cell" group would like to see. If not,
they would not have contradicted the conclusions
of Hans-Otto Johnsen, would they?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--When you run experiments with the intent of proving a point to the beekeeping world then the experiment needs to be free of chalkbrood, AFB, EFB, etc. to get our attention.--(Bob)

Hi Bob,

Then this should get your attention:

If disease free colonies is a criteria for running experiments on honeybees. Then ALL experiments ever done on honeybees are void because viruses exist in every honeybee colony, and although clinical symptoms sometimes do not show, it is still a disease that is present. 

Studies like this suggest show that viruses are found in 100% of queens tested:

Distribution of viruses in the body of queens. The results of RT-PCR analysis on tissues of hemolymph, gut, ovaries, spermatheca, head, and eviscerated body from 10 queens for the presence of six viruses are shown in Table 1. Among the six viruses screened, ABPV was not found in any materials. BQCV, CBPV, DWV, KBV, and SBV were detected in one or more queen tissues. Except for tissues of the head, which were negative for all six viruses, the other five tissue samples were found to be virus positive. The presence of DWV was found in 100% of hemolymph samples, 80% of gut samples, 100% of ovary samples, 80% of spermatheca samples, and 100% of eviscerated body samples. The presence of BQCV was found in 100% of gut samples and 70% of ovary samples. The presence of SBV was found in 40% of ovary samples, 20% of hemolymph samples, and 60% of eviscerated body samples. The presence of CBPV was found in 30% of hemolymph and 40% of eviscerated body samples. The presence of KBV was found in 20% of the eviscerated body samples.

--Dr. Delaplane was showing slides of some studies he did over the last few years and one study got the opposite result the second time around and he has yet to figure out why. Keith spoke at the KHPA fall meeting last week.--(Bob)

He should consult an experienced small cell beekeeper that knows these things. Large cell beekeepers tend to know nothing about how small cell affects varroa. 

--In truth I trust the testing I do MYSELF the most!--(Bob)

Yes, but by your own words, it is not credible due to disease being present.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

Dr. Delaplane told me he is starting experiments with small cell and is hopeful to see positive results as claimed in other studies.

>He should consult an experienced small cell beekeeper that knows these things.

I believe that he already has and wants to prove it in his own studies. He has heard the claims and wants to be involved. I don't think that he has any preconceived prejudices.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

I trust Dr. Delaplane to run an honest study with controls.
Will the small cell qroup here agree to accept the results of his study?
If so please say so.
Dr. Delaplane did not tell me he was going to do such a study which kind of suprises meas we spent quite a bit of time talking . 

Keith also said he was moving away from varroa research which suprised me.

I do believe my friend Bill would not get it wrong so look forward to the study.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

>He should consult an experienced small cell beekeeper that knows these things.--(Joe)

I believe that he already has,,,--(Bill)

Small cell methodry as described by Dee Lusby requires that absolutely NO treatments, syrup feeding and other crutches be used, as these things negatively affect colony functions.

What I mean when I say that he should consult an experienced small cell beekeeper, is that it be a small cell beekeeper that adheres to the philosophy of small cell beekeeping.

Having 6 years experience with small cell, regressing and maintaining small cell ferals using very strict zero tolerance for treatments and feeding. I know that if one adheres to these philosophies while regressing and maintains small cell colonies, certain things will be observed. And I occasionally refer back to my observations to identify the cheaters when reading letters or claims posted by them. I know that many who regress may fail to observe some of these things, and I understand this. But when I notice some of the very experienced folks claiming miraculous success with small cell BUT failing to mention some of the obvious when I prompt them, then I know that something isnt right with what they are claiming.

So basically, picking a small cell beekeeper for consultation without a proper search is akin to throwing a dart at a list of names.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Will the small cell qroup here agree to accept the results of his study?
If so please say so.

To quote Rob Harrison: "In truth I trust the testing I do MYSELF the most!"

How could anyone agree to accept the results of an unspecified protocol being tested as proof that small cell works or doesn't? Sucess and failure are all in the details. Why would anyone abandon a system that is already working for them because some different version of the concept didn't work for someone else under different conditions?

If I take Excedrin for a headache and mine goes away and you take it and yours doesn't, should I quit using it for my headaches? More so, if I take two for my headache and wash it down with a Mt. Dew and it goes away and you take one and wash it down with milk and yours doesn't, does that mean it doesn't work and I should quit using it?

>I do believe my friend Bill would not get it wrong so look forward to the study.

I'm glad to see someone take it seriously. I hope he bothered to get it right.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

---Will the small cell qroup here agree to accept the results of his study?
If so please say so.--(Rob)

I sure will accept it! 
IF, the colonies are properly regressed, and properly stabilized (allowed to seat in with a new queen reared by small cell bees once regressed) and the study continued for 2 years after stabilization


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<I'm not sure that I should bring his attention 
to your reprinting of entire articles from his 
magazine, as I am not sure you have "publication 
rights", and I'm pretty sure that your use is not
covered under "fair use", as it simply reprints 
the entire article.>>

No need to bring it to his attention, he is quite aware of Beesource, but if it makes you feel better, go ahead. I haven't received Bee Culture for many, many years. The articles on Beesource come directly from the authors. Clever, ay? I'm in the process of bringing all of Walter Wright's articles on board. In fact, we'll have both the original and "edited by Flotum" versions for some of the articles.

<<And when it IS published, it will be ignored
or dismissed by the faithful small cell 
advocates, as it appears that the total
dataset does not show the results that the
"small cell" group would like to see.>>

Jim, why do I have to repeat myself? I said I will be happy to include the study you are talking about and give it fair exposure. What people think about it, I'm not responsible for.

- Barry


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

<Keith also said he was moving away from varroa research which suprised me.

>I do believe my friend Bill would not get it wrong so look forward to the study.

That is curious. I wish I had asked him more specifically as to the goals of his "Looking into small cell testing" were. Perhaps someone who has contact with him could clear that up.


----------



## tony350i (Jul 29, 2005)

---Will the small cell qroup here agree to accept the results of his study?
If so please say so.--(Rob)

what harm can it do i will










Tony


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

---Will the small cell qroup here agree to accept the results of his study?
If so please say so.--(Rob)

Understand what you are asking here.

Take a hypothetical flip flopped here, 
just for fun.

If myself and few other experienced beekeepers were to assess the quality of queens that Bob rears. Would Bob accept the results of our study?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

I was quite disturbed by the tactics that you chose to employ on Barry by side stepping the issues and use of discrediting remarks and extortion tactics.

Here Barry simply asked in the nicest possible way for supporting evidence to back up Jims claims and heres how I translate what transpired. 


Jim Writes:
Quit the baiting, Barry, it is tiresome.
You know perfectly well that I asked what
the status of the study was in terms of the
pending publication in a journal, so it is
obvious that I myself do not know the status.

Translation:
Attempting make Barry look like that bad guy baiting poor Jim.
do not know the status Barry was simply asking for supporting evidence and this remark by Jim translates to Jim aint got no supporting evidence. 

Jim Writes:
I can pass along your request to Kim Flottum
who can verify that he caught all kinds of 
flack from the national (Norweigan) beekeeping 
organization that objected to the "premature 
publication of a misleading subset of the study 
results", but I hesitate to do so.

Translation:
Playing good cop bad cop here. 
An attempt to put Barry at ease for what he is about to say next

Jim Writes:
I'm not sure that I should bring his attention 
to your reprinting of entire articles from his 
magazine, as I am not sure you have "publication 
rights", and I'm pretty sure that your use is not
covered under "fair use", as it simply reprints 
the entire article.

Translation:
This is a treat to divulge discrediting information in exchange for Barry backing off. 
Seems like a veiled attempt at extortion.

Is this how Scientific discussion works Jim?

Please stick to the evidence and stop the threats and intimidation tactics in order to win your point!!!!

Im disappointed that more people reading do not speak up and stand up for others on these lists when these types intimidation tactics are used on well meaning persons.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Joe, I call 'em as I see 'em, and you and Barry
both know full well what the story is surrounding
the study in Norway, and are merely posturing,
pretending to be unaware of the larger context
surrounding the article at issue.

Barry was CLEARLY baiting, asking me why I 
cannot somehow provide to him on a silver platter
the exact information I asked if anyone ELSE had.

As for your views Joe, you are welcome to them.
As I have said before many times, I am no one's
"opponent", and I refuse to be labeled as holding
any "side" in this discussion.

As for the "veiled attempt at extortion",
this slanderous accusation is silly. 
I'd rather not get caught between Barry and
Kim, that's all.

Its not intimidation Joe, you take me much
much much much much much too seriously.
I'm harmless.
Mostly, anyway.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Its not intimidation Joe, you take me much
much much much much much too seriously.--(Jim)


Well then don't take this to seriously,,,








Just pointing your hypocrisy when I see it. 
Ive mostly given up on arguing small cell with you in favor of pointing out the unfair playing field the large cell advocates insist we play on. You demand scientific proof from others, but then when they ask it from you, all we get is sidestepping the facts and intimidation tactics and Jim blowing his stack again!  All I see is you talking the talk you want others to walk, but you never you walking the talk, you talk.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

I'm sorry that you are so confused and frustrated
Joe, but don't confuse me with a "large cell
advocate", don't confuse me with any sort of
advocate, and don't confuse yourself further by
thinking that I am "arguing" for anything more
than non-fuzzy thinking from any/all sides.

You clearly have a preconceived view of what
is right versus what is in error, and you
allow that to color your thinking to the point
of slander. That's sad. 

Don't make the additional error of thinking
that just because I take the time to engage
you in conversation and give your views the
respect and courtesy of a response that this
entitles you to "argue" with me.

Note that I understand how much you want to
argue your case, but you need not presume that
I am an opponent. A review of what I have said
to date would indicate that I am less of an
opponent than an ally to your "cause".

Seeing as you are walking and talking, would
you mind walking _away_ from the keyboard before
typing your next set of insults and misguided 
streams of bile in my general direction?

Thanks.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--and give your views the
respect and courtesy of a response__Jim

I didn't see any respect and courtesy in your disgusting and insulting response to Barry's very polite invitation for you to bring some evidence to the table. Your skills in writing and sidestepping the issues may be succeeding in pulling the wool over the eyes of many on the list, but it seems Barry, myself and maybe a few others are beginning to see that you are not producing the factual scientific data that you yourself demand of others. As stated MANY times by yourself, wheres the scientific data ????????


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>sidestepping the issues may be succeeding in pulling the wool over the eyes of many on the list

Naw, I don't think many are being taken in. Most people on Bee Source are intelligent enough to recognize the responses for what they are. 

I emailed Kim awhile back when Mark Winston was still doing his column in 'Bee Culture' for permission to print one of Winston's articles in our local newsletter. Kim responded that articles in Bee Culture are published under what he told me are "first North American rights" and that articles belong to the authors. 

As one who sometimes writes an article for the magazine from time to time, Dr. Fischer should know that.

So I emailed Mark Winston. His 3 word reply: "Sure, go ahead".


----------

