# Discounting scientific studies



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Seems like lately, especially in the small cell debate, there are many who accuse people of simply trying to discount a study because they don’t agree with it. Maybe for someone who has done nothing in the realm of trying to measure the thing that was in the study, this might be a valid accusation. However, I find that EVERYONE does this in matters where the study disagrees with their personal experiences. AS THEY SHOULD!

Even the “Scientifically minded” among us seem to discount more studies than they will accept in any given argument. Either they think the conclusion was unwarranted, the numbers were insignificant or the experiment just poorly designed, most will discount any study when its results are contrary to their own experience. The fact is your own experience was in a context of your actual application (i.e. your climate, your beeyard, your race of bees, your system of beekeeping) where the study was an attempt to control everything possible and probably was done either in a climate different from yours or some other circumstance different that yours. So your honest, and sincere response to this is to try to find that difference and point it out in order to explain the differences in outcome.

If anyone has paid any attention to scientific studies over the last few years, let alone the last few decades, let alone the last few centuries, you’ll see that the results often vacillate between two opposite conclusions every other year or so. How many medications have been proven safe in a scientific study only to be pulled off the market after less than a year of use in the field? How many times has caffeine been proven good for you, bad for you and good for you again? Or chocolate? Anyone remember when doctors almost uniformly advised against eating it? Now it’s an antioxidant that, according to a scientific study in Holland, will halve the chances of an over 50 male dying.

Only the foolish follow the results of scientific studies without question. The prudent hold them up against personal experience and common sense and look for the causes of the differences in results.


----------



## kirk-o (Feb 2, 2007)

Well you know I don't have time for experts or Studies.I'm no where near any experts.I'm no wheo observe what works re near studies I'm to busy with life and Beekeeping.I'm a Practical guy.I like to observe.I like to observe Phenomenon.I started useing small cell thought I would observe the Obvious.I captured a swarm they looked small I used small cell foundation.They did good still doing good going on four years let them requeen them selves.

Got bees from Dee Lusby one did good and still is ants got one.Started 3 nucs in September they are doing good small cell.I started Nucs with purchased queens have had bad luck with commercial queens we will see how they do.I have lost bees to ants only.But I figured that out finally.I feed them and move the feed farther away each day until they stay away from the hives.I observed that the small bees work earlier and longer than Large bees I have had.That doesn't mean yours don't work early or late.I stopped haveing beehive crash in the fall and winter.I have observed less swarming since I started unlimited brood nest.I just observed this.I have had a hirrrible time makeing nuc's never worked I tried this September worked good low ant population then cooler went just like Michael Bush suggested on his web Page.I have discovered here in L A I had to work out what worked.I made mistakes but I figured it out because I observed what worked if it worked it was valid if it didn't it wasn't.
There has been a bad drought also but this year we got more rain than all last year so maybe better.I just didn't want to 
1-Didn't want to be a ambulance driver for my bees

2-Didn't want to medicate and pollute the hive and wax then eat the honey or sell contaminated honey

2-wanted to work with Mother Nature

Thats what I do
Merry Christmas

kirkobeeo

PS Thats my study


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

So we don't go too far with this line of thinking. Galileo established that the sun was the center of our solar system. Common experience of the time said he was wrong. After excommunication from the church Galileo wrote a letter of apology for his heretical statements. Scientific research is often correct in spite of it appearance to the contrary. Much of Einstein's postulates were proven correct when on the surface they didn't seem sensible at all. 

Michael, the clinical trials you refer to, where a compound is approved for human use, then later withdrawn is an entirely different type of research. Those studies are conducted using a dramatically different process than conventional scientific research. The expectation that side effects may not appear in the initial trials is only one reason that our healthcare system is required to report on any drug's use long after it has been approved; in fact as long as the drug continues to be used.

I do agree that the outcome of a single scientific research project is, in itself, not proof that its outcome will always be the same. If an individual's personal experience runs counter to that outcome, then that outcome alone shouldn't be sufficient to alter that individuals behavior. It should, though, be sufficient to cause them to examine that behavior more closely.....rather than automatically assuming that the study was flawed.


----------



## Natural Resources (Dec 21, 2007)

You should always remember that science is the search for truth through the best explanation that scientific study, observation, and testing can come up with. At any given time, scientific explanations are only the best explanations available that cannot yet be disproved. Therefore, it is your scientific duty to challenge any study you find interesting, which is how science evolves.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I'm always in favor of finding the answer to something that is a simple answer. If everyone says that if you do "this", "that" will happen, then lets find out. When something is a simple fact, such as the position of the sun and the earth in the universe, you CAN prove it. When it's a matter of statistics, such as how safe a medicine is, it's often more a matter of probability and circumstances, not a simple fact at all.

My heros are the ones who, instead of saying we know something is like "this", say, let's try it and find out if that's true or not.

If Galileo had accepted the current scientific facts, he would never have concluded that they were wrong.


----------



## kirk-o (Feb 2, 2007)

I had a very wise Man tell me once "Complexity is perportional to the non-confrot".I also discovered in beekeeping what was true for me is what I could observe.Like that Huber guy 
he Definitely knew how to observe.The more I confront or observe my bees the simpler and the more sense the bees make
kirko


----------



## NW IN Beekeeper (Jun 29, 2005)

*Observation = Truth*

[...I also discovered in beekeeping what was true...is what I could observe.]

An anology:
What I find interesting is that a new drug goes on the market as having nearly no side-effects. This is largely due to the fact it is tested on a very few percentage of people. Once in the public realm, suddenly other (sometimes even fatal) side-effects surface. Now keep in mind, these are studies that a financed by large drug companies that have large budgets for these types of studies, and despite that there are still these events. 

Now consider:
The studies we consider are often performed by universities, the government, or small companies. Often these studies are 'seeds' of discovery that the organization will grow into more research (research money) or a product that can be sold for a profit. That in my mind has a shadow of complicity. That combined with a smaller research budget to do a quality evaluation leaves me with some doubt which ultimately makes me take each report with a grain of salt. 

Also: 
When I look at the controls within some studies, it becomes obvious that a study is performed by 'lab types' rather than actual beekeepers. As an example, consider the german report about cell phones causing CCD. First off the report used cordless phones (different freq. than cell phones) and gathered bees from the front porch regardless of age (resulting in picking up a fair number of house bees that no experience in returning home from foraging distances). It is these types of bumbles that makes me skeptical at trusting the white papers. 

Furthmore: 
Conditions in and about my hives change daily based on too numerous conditions to even begin to list here. To assume that all those conditions become uniform enough (even in a lab setting) to derive a trustworthy outcome is very presumpuous. This is also my true feeling towards individual beekeepers results alike. So I don't ask beekeepers much anymore, I observe the bees and their results provide the answers. 

My observations: 
I work with a lot of feral colony removals. And the universal thing that I see is the natural brood nest structure. And when I look at that natural structure I do see variations in cell size that makes good sense. While the central most cells are nearest small cell, as the cells progress to the edges of the combs they become more large cell. Now in my colder climate that makes perfect sense. Winter bees cluster on the center of the comb and the queen lays worker eggs. There is no need for drone cells in the center under the cluster. As the winter progresses into spring and cluster enlarges, the queen starts laying drone eggs on the edges where the now larger looser cluster of bees can cover them. This make perfect sense. So I do not feel that a brood nest entirely composed of small cell combs is 'natural'. (but nor are my wooden frames and boxes). Any diviation from natural usually induces stress and inversely affects productivity (shuffling frames and adding naked foundation), but proper management can increase populations and productivity (shuffling frames and adding nake foundation) <- See beekeeping itself can be a set of walking contradictions! 

My answer: 
Cell size can be dependant on too many variables to say one cell size fits all. Some of these variables are time of year, bee genetic species, and nectar/pollen flows. I am not convinced that small cell is the complete answer to the problem (but it may help) and I'm not conviced that large cell is the devil. Other factors by themselves and collectively can have just as much or even more an impact (though, every bit helps). The perspective that must be kept is we are dealing with animals, and the foremost defense is always to have the healthiest stock from the best genetics that is suitable for the rearing environment. The next step is to 'control' the environment to give the best opportunity for development (sources of food, water, shelter (combs)). The best control we can give is to observe what naturally occurs on average with the stock of our choice. Establishing an average can be darn near impossible for those of us constantly introducing feral stocks that lack an 'average' standard.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> My heroes are the ones who, instead of saying we know something is like "this", say, let's try it and find out if that's true or not.


Michael, we don’t always agree but on this we surely do. People who examine these scientific findings, are uncomfortable with the results, design their own studies to disprove the original and then go about doing it. These are the real scientific heroes.



Michael Bush said:


> If Galileo had accepted the current scientific facts, he would never have concluded that they were wrong.


Absolutely. One of my heroes. He didn’t only speculate on why the thinking of the time was wrong, he went about proving it. No government grants, no ‘big buck’ pharmaceutical budgets. By the way, the only reason he wrote the letter of apology was to keep from starving to death. No one in the community would sell food to an excommunicated soul.


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

My first ten years out of veterinary school I read every ariticle in a dozen differant journals every month and learned that half of what I had been taught was wrong. I tried to follow all the newest techniques and learn all the newest concepts. By the end of that ten years I had figured out that most of those newest ideas were a dissaster in my hands and had been "scientificly proven" to be a bad idea within a couple of years after they were published. My staff and clients were consfused by the frequent changes, and I was feeling like I was in the wrong church and the wrong pew. It took a long time for me to learn to look and listen to the "out of date old fossils" and follow their example. From that time on my practice grew and my success rate with cases accelerated so fast that I had to get out of practice because I couldn't handle the work load and collapsed with a coronary. Nothing is ever what it seems to be! Science is a good tool if used properly, but it is only a tool. When you start to believe in science as the end answer you have elevated science to a religion. I used to tell my associates, "When you start to believe in medicine, you will be like the carpenter that believes in his saw. That's a carpenter with less than ten fingers."


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

What fools we've been! Abandon that insane science! Who was the idiot that adopted bypass surgery? Cardiac medicines? Bah Humbug! (appropriate timing). Go back to the science of our ancestors. Blood letting.....seems like a much better concept.

Airplanes, automobiles. What lunacy! Give me a horse and buggy every time.

Yes indeed, the earth is the center of the solar system.

Merry Christmas.....even to you scientific non-believers!


----------



## Ravenseye (Apr 2, 2006)

In grad school, we learned to spend time looking for unknown or unmeasured influences on any given situation. The average beekeeper observes at a given point in time, and builds these observations in a longitudinal way. We call this "experience" if it's informal and we call it a "study" when done more formally. Often, it takes many different studies and experiences to factor in the multitude of influences that make up the world around us. This is the reason that we all spend so much time on these boards. We seek the experience and judgment of others because they've done different things, live in different areas, work with different bees, etc.

Certainly, what works for one may not work for another. Some reasons are obvious (for example, the climate here in New England precludes me from doing things at certain times of the year that beeks in Texas may do as a matter of course) while others are less clear (perhaps a local farmer sprays without your knowledge and it affects your bees). 

Any study or any advice is information ready to be processed. It's up to you, the reader, to decide it's value. Yes, it's true that a scientific paper, properly cited and vetted through the process of peer review, has more foundational data to support it's position. But, as many have pointed out, the conclusions of anyone.....scientist or street beek......are valid to the extent of their usefulness.

Discounting any knowledge, most especially the kind that comes from formal or informal experience, is foolhardy. It would be like skipping chapters of a book because you didn't agree with that part of the plot. Read it...take it all in, and go from there.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>What fools we've been! Abandon that insane science!

You seem to be the only one advocating anything resembling that in this thread...


----------



## rantcliff (Sep 16, 2007)

*Chocolate*

I am just thankful for the recent scientific studies that tell me it is good for me to eat dark chocolate. 

Have a Blessed Christmas!


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> >What fools we've been! Abandon that insane science!
> 
> You seem to be the only one advocating anything resembling that in this thread...


Let me try to connect the dots.

To paraphrase sierrabees:
He spent the first 10 years of his veterinary practice following the ‘newest techniques and concepts’. It was a disaster. Then he began to listen to ‘"out of date old fossils" and follow their example’. From that point on his practice thrived.

My reply:


beemandan said:


> What fools we've been! Abandon that insane science!





sierrabees said:


> "When you start to believe in medicine, you will be like the carpenter that believes in his saw. That's a carpenter with less than ten fingers."


Isn’t that a cool sounding quote?

My reply:


beemandan said:


> Who was the idiot that adopted bypass surgery? Cardiac medicines? Bah Humbug! (appropriate timing). Go back to the science of our ancestors. Blood letting.....seems like a much better concept.


Ya know, here it is Christmas Day and I’m debating the merits of scientific research on Beesource. I’ve got to get a life!!!!!!
See ya’ll next year.
Happy Holidays


----------



## Sarge (Jun 26, 2006)

I love the way Science is under attack. For most of my life science has grown in stature until it is now Science, a psudo religion of the atheist. Once pronounced by someone with enough letters after their name it becomes gospel. And the writings of the Saints like St. Newton, St. Einstein, or St. Darwin are beyond attack. And any who dare are heretics who deserve the stake and flame.
God save the heretics, long may they challenge! 
And God help those who remain true believers to Science.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I’m debating the merits of scientific research

I haven't heard anyone debate the merits of scientific research here. Research can be very useful. The issue is how much faith you put in a study as opposed to real experience. If you believe every study that comes along, your world is in total chaos.

My point was that even the "scientific" minded among us discount studies all the time for their own reasons.


----------



## riverrat (Jun 3, 2006)

*my take on people looking at research*

In the United States people have become adapt to believing whats told to them without questioning the sources. If you dont believe it look at todays news media and then go uptown and see what the talk is. This has spilled over into not only science but alll aspects of life. Wether it be bee keeping or medicine. People are taking more pills than ever. Very few question the side effects of the treatment or if there is an alternative to the pill they are taking. How many people treat there hives for no better reason than they read in a catalog this will fix it all. They dont research or study why or what they are treating. They are taking the word of the seller that it is needed. For every one person who questions the research or study there is far more who automatically take it for gospel. Dont believe it, next time you sell a pound of honey to someone claiming to be buying it for allergies. Ask them how they come to believe that honey is helpful for allergies. I would be willing to bet 99% of them couldnt site one study or any creditable research that would back the claim. What you will here is they had been told by someone. Orson Welles best proved the power of the mass media over peoples thinking years ago.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

I think science is only one avenue to finding accurate answers but is usually more accurate at idenfying a specific cause and effect relationship. I don't think applying the scientific method to a problem necessesarily results in finding THE answer but more often AN answer. A couple of faults I've seen in studies focuses on beekeepers keeping bees at Universities necessarily have different prioirties than me keeping bees in the field. Sometimes the focus on the sceintific aspect of a study is well set up but is unable to address the impact from the exceptionally wide array of factors that can exists within any population in nature. We see that everyday as we (beekeepers in general) run any number of hives, apply the exact same management and see a wide result in these hives due to location within a yard, drifitng, damaged queens, genetics ..... The limited time factor in conducting studies too often skews results. A study of the effectiveness of cumophos in controlling varroa, for example, may give the accurate result that Cumphos is an effective agent. Is the study able to identify the many other factors accurately such as the cumlative effect of use over years due to build up in comb, effect on queens which may be weakened in small degrees over generations and the long term effect on segments of the worker population who through certain times in their caste, have higher contact with the strips? 

I read every study I can get my bifocals on with great interest and give them strong weight in my decision making about management. I also include anecdoatal information from other beeks who have established a level of credibility but also keep in mind that without scientific method their perception of a result due to a certain group of circumstance may not be accurate.


----------



## ScadsOBees (Oct 2, 2003)

> Originally Posted by beemandan
> Who was the idiot that adopted bypass surgery? Cardiac medicines? Bah Humbug! (appropriate timing). Go back to the science of our ancestors. Blood letting.....seems like a much better concept.


And yet, blood letting is a proven remedy for a certain disease(s?). As are maggots and leeches and...and honey??? Those are so primitive!!!

Acupuncture and other alternative medicines are starting to be integrated into most modern hospitals, they haven't been proven why or how, but they do seem to work, even if the controlled studies can't prove that they do work or not.

Maybe the old ways do have merit? That doesn't mean we throw out new ways that work, but why throw out the old ways if they work? 

Rick


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Michael Bush said:


> My point was that even the "scientific" minded among us discount studies all the time for their own reasons.


Indeed, that is one of the strengths of the scientific endeavor, provided one's own reasons are appropriate. 

Keith


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

ScadsOBees said:


> And yet, blood letting is a proven remedy for a certain disease(s?).


Very few, but technically you are correct. The thing is, it used to be used for all sorts of things, and for some mighty erroneous reasons.



> >As are maggots and leeches and...and honey??? Those are so primitive!!!


To use them to the exclusion of modern medical techniques in many instances would be best described as opting for the primitive approach. To suggest that there is no place for them in the practice of medicine is silly, but to suggest that they were once used as wisely as they would be today, or that the rational behind using them in the past was equivalent to that of today would be equally as silly.

As to the maggots, they are hardly 100% benign and most modern facilities that use them use lab bred maggots so as to not import all sorts of nasties into the wound. The use of maggots today is not quite what it used to be.



> Acupuncture and other alternative medicines are starting to be integrated into most modern hospitals, they haven't been proven why or how, but they do seem to work, even if the controlled studies can't prove that they do work or not.


I would choose something that has been show to work over something that "seems" to work. I find it fascinating that one might say that something seems to work even though the data suggest it does not. If the studies show it is no better, then the logical conclusion would have to be that it doesn't' "seem" to work.



> Maybe the old ways do have merit?


They often do. The funny part is where people see that something is one of the "old ways", and automatically assume that this means that it is inherently superior to some newfangled brand spanking new way, As if that should be part of the criteria for deciding the idea of method, or material is actually superior. 

If some old folk remedy works, have at it, if it just "seems" to work contrary to the evidence, think twice. Otherwise I will sell you some beehives that *seem* to have bees in them.



> That doesn't mean we throw out new ways that work, but why throw out the old ways if they work?


I couldn't agree more, unless the new way is more effective. If it isn't, it should not be the "new way", just another way.

Throwing out a method or material that is efficacious merely because another method or material is "newer" is not rational. Just as irrational is putting on your rose colored glasses, looking back into the "Golden Days" of [fill in what you like here] and refusing to adopt a superior method merely because it is new is not rational either.

Choose what is shown to be efficacious where such data exists and ignore the vintage.

Keith

PS: The golden years are only golden in retrospect.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Sarge said:


> I love the way Science is under attack.


Attacking a methodology like science is pretty non-productive. It is not looking for a fight. It isn't looking for anything, it is merely there, a construct and an idea. Don't make it out to be more than that.



> For most of my life science has grown in stature until it is now Science, a psudo religion of the atheist.


Once again, only one of the faithful would make such a comment. It ranks up there in silliness with a statement like "Atheist believe there is no god". DO you see how this statement misses the mark? 

It seems that the folks who participate in actual religions make the above statement with some frequency, and yet the differences between the scientific method, and something like religion are legion. I wouldn't bother to compare them. 

Now if one were to, say, compare the method for teaching some of the subject matter with which science usually concerns itself, then yes, there is a certain amount of simply relying on authority to pronounce one idea good another bad, an in that instance, there may be a parallel (sort of, if one were to do a few mental gymnastics) with religion. The difference remains though, that in science the data is available for scrutiny by the individual and repetition and reproducibility reign in the end, whereas in religion it is merely relying on what one is told by leaders and some texts. There is not much by way of testing and verifying.



> Once pronounced by someone with enough letters after their name it becomes gospel.


Mmm, there is a certain amount of authoritarianism in all aspects of human live and the sciences are no different, but it is not so simple as you describe, not even close. Once a scientist does some good work and becomes and "expert" in a given area of study, he/she begins to be trusted at his word in the public and professional arena. This is not entirely unreasonable as generally speaking when someone is an expert in a field, they tend to make good judgments about the subject material. It is not, nor is it assumed to be a guarantee of such. Getting his/her future work published though will still get him or her subjected to the usual barrage of pulling, pushing, questioning and banging on his work, methodology, data and conclusions. No one gets a free pass.

A scientist develops a reputation and the chops to have the authority you are arguing against by producing work that has stood against the onslaught of peer review (which in most areas of science is hardly a walk in the park) and this work is done by creating and testing new ideas and, and this is important, proving false or incomplete the ideas went before. Contrast that with religious training, where one might have a personal test of faith when one looks up in one's seminary room and says (what am I doing here!) but where one accrues one's chops by how one can tow the party line and work not to contradict the traditional ideas, but to support them with one's very soul.

You celebrate attacking what you see as a system of validation via authority, invoking "God" as you do so, seemingly unaware that the system by which religion supports the belief in "God" is perhaps one of the most blatant examples of that same thing. Spectacular!

Quick question, did anyone peer review the bible? The Koran, The Pentateuch, [insert ancient holy text here]?  Would there be fewer inconsistencies if someone had?



> And the writings of the Saints like St. Newton, St. Einstein, or St. Darwin are beyond attack.


Methinks thou needest brush up on one's science history, it is rife with the conflict you suggest is not there. In fact I find it kind of finny that you follow St. Newton with St. Einstein. Do you see how merely mentioning those two shoots a hole in your argument that these gentlemen are beyond attack?



> And any who dare are heretics who deserve the stake and flame.


I think you have forgotten whom did the tying and the burning and with whom they were allied.



> God save the heretics, long may they challenge!


Indeed, though I think there may be some confusion as to who the heretics truly are. Scientists worth their salt are inherent heretics. They choose to investigate instead of relying on what they are told through history and tradition. The spend loads of time trying to disprove any number of assumptions or theories or facts. Something the faithful never do, unless it is contrary to what their authority figures told them.



> And God help those who remain true believers to Science.


God help them what? Continue to pursue truth over superstition and assumption? If there is a god, I suspect he would be cheering them on. I suspect he would delight in any species trying to understand his/her/it's creation. It would have to be a pretty small minded Deity to want to keep it all secret, and I cannot believe anything that might create a universe as vast as this and as diverse as this could be small minded.

Cute use of gospel there, an interesting literary device in this case, if off the mark in terms of actual description.

Keith


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Keith Benson said:


> The difference remains though, that in science the data is available for scrutiny by the individual and repetition and reproducibility reign in the end, whereas in religion it is merely relying on what one is told by leaders and some texts. There is not much by way of testing and verifying.


"testing and verifying" according to the scientific mindset, this is true.

- Barry


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I think a vital distinction has been missed in this thread.

Scientific studies can and should be carefully scrutinized and criticised. No problems there.

But what you're really talking about here is discounting *conclusions* from scientific studies that do not coincide with your experiences, and may not coincide with the methods and results of the studies from which the conclusions have been drawn.

For example, if I drop ten objects and all ten objects fall to the ground, and I then conclude that radio waves from space are propelling the objects toward the earth, would you discount the study (that ten objects fell to the ground), or my conclusion (radio waves from outer space pushed the objects toward earth)?


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

Any study or any advice is information ready to be processed. It's up to you, the reader, to decide it's value. Yes, it's true that a scientific paper, properly cited and vetted through the process of peer review, has more foundational data to support it's position. But, as many have pointed out, the conclusions of anyone.....scientist or street beek......are valid to the extent of their usefulness.

Discounting any knowledge, most especially the kind that comes from formal or informal experience, is foolhardy. It would be like skipping chapters of a book because you didn't agree with that part of the plot. Read it...take it all in, and go from there.[/QUOTE]


I wish I could have said it this elequently!


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Barry said:


> "testing and verifying" according to the scientific mindset, this is true.


As opposed to?

Keith


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Kieck said:


> I then conclude that radio waves from space are propelling the objects toward the earth, would you discount the study (that ten objects fell to the ground), or my conclusion (radio waves from outer space pushed the objects toward earth)?


I would think you did not use the heavy duty tinfoil when you made your hat!



Keith


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

sierrabees said:


> Discounting any knowledge, most especially the kind that comes from formal or informal experience, is foolhardy.


I get what you are saying, but I would respectfully argue that there are plenty of times when the knowledge that comes from informal experience can be hazardous to embrace. It can also be a wonderful starting point for further investigation. As with many things, it all depends.

Some folks seem to want to argue that their personal, and limited experience, somehow trumps anything derived using the scientific method. Now that may occasionally be true, it depends on the quality of the study, and the experience of the individual. But generally speaking, a well done experiment is going to tell you more about a particular question than any single human being's anecdotal information.

Seems there are those who think that important information can only come from a text. And then there is a group that feel that a person's personal experience is the end all. I suggest that the optimal situation is where one has a command of what is known about a subject, and then one filters one's experience through the latticework of knowledge that comes with the aforementioned command. To discount one or the other is silly, as it is the synthesis of the two that generally yields the best questions.

And then one does some work to answer the questions and Bob's your uncle.

To me this beats "works for me" the majority of the time. It certainly beats "my father's, uncle's, college roommate's, daughter's boyfriend swears by . . . ."

Science (capitalized only because it is at the begining fo the sentence) is not the end all, it is merely a method, a darned good one at that, but just a method none the less. I am amazed at how angry people can become with something as simple as the scientific method. Perhaps it threatens their world view?



> I wish I could have said it this eloquently!


I think you pretty well did.

Keith


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

I think a few people misunderstood my firt post in this thread. I wasn't saying we should ignore science. What I was saying was we should not treat science as a religion, where one believes what they are told based only on the credentials of the person saying it.

The problem I have with modern science is that so many researchers approach a subject from the perspective that that they should prove themselves right. That is the antithesis of what science is all about, but since research costs money and the grants seldom go to the man with a track record of proving himself wrong, the temptation is to narrow the search in such a way that little effort is given to proving an idea wrong.

I remember overhearing a conversation between two of the great gurus at UC Davis Vet School once where they were discussing an applicant for a staff possition. One of the professors said, "He hasn't published anything in at least two years, and the research he did publish he only proved that his hypothesis was wrong. We don't need that kind of research here."

I don't believe the poor guy got the job.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

sierrabees said:


> I think a few people misunderstood my firt post in this thread. I wasn't saying we should ignore science. What I was saying was we should not treat science as a religion, where one believes what they are told based only on the credentials of the person saying it.


I agree, in fact, that sounds like somethign a scientist would say.



> I remember overhearing a conversation between two of the great gurus at UC Davis Vet School once where they were discussing an applicant for a staff possition. One of the professors said, "He hasn't published anything in at least two years, and the research he did publish he only proved that his hypothesis was wrong. We don't need that kind of research here."
> 
> I don't believe the poor guy got the job.


I suspect there was more to it than that. Though you are right, expereiments that yeild a null result are harder to publish, of course sometimes the null result is a function fo the way you ask the question . . . 

There is science, and there is the scientific community, and there is the information that science generates and the conclusion that people may draw from that information. All of these things tend to get lumped into one gamish, and they are not the same thing. It think there is a little confusion about that in this discussion too.

Keith

PS: When were you at Davis??


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Keith Benson said:


> Seems there are those who think that important information can only come from a text. And then there is a group that feel that a person's personal experience is the end all. I suggest that the optimal situation is where one has a command of what is known about a subject, and then one filters one's experience through the latticework of knowledge that comes with the aforementioned command. To discount one or the other is silly, as it is the synthesis of the two that generally yields the best questions.
> 
> Keith


This pretty much sums up the issue in my eyes. Great analysis, Keith.


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

*My two cents*

I think this is a complicated question. Given that Michael started this, I also the obvious sub-text of this issue is small cell, and whether it works. It's really barely the subtext, and nearly the text. (I'm not trying to pick on you Michael, and actually have a great deal of respect for you -- you've been a big help to me. Also, I've got small cell in my one hive and no mites, and the whole small cell debate is interesting to me on lots of levels. One of those levels is expressed in this thread.)

I think the starting point is to figure out what is meant by a "scientific study." I am assuming that means an experiment. I suppose "study" could also refer to a sampling, but to me that is not really what is involved in the scientific method.

The second step is to figure out what an experiment/study is supposed to do (which is not necessarily what a scientific study actually does). An experiment is supposed to determine causation. Properly constructed, there is a control, a variable and then a comparison. If done right, the differences between the control, the variable and the comparison of the results identifies causation. 

Here's a hypothetical that I think might illustrate this. Suppose, instead of using chemicals, I put a quartz crystal on my hive covers. After three years, I noticed a that my hives no longer had mites. I could speculate that the crystals trapped some energy that killed the mites. However, that's downright goofy, and I would not believe it for a minute. But what if I did an experiment that showed that the crystal seemed to, for whatever reason, actually be a cause. Then, I'd want to do the experiment a few more times. But I suppose that enough experiments would establish causation.

The key, to me, is that a good experiment helps to separate correlation from causation. In other words, a good experiment can show that what we generally experience may just be correlation, not causation. To give a concrete example, just because I use small cell and have no mites does not necessarily mean that small cell caused me not to have mites. 

In my opinion, a person cannot validly just discount a scientific study just because it disagrees with one's personal experience. As I just stated, correlation does not equal causation, and a good experiment can prove that just because A is associated with B does not mean that A causes B,or vice-versa. Just because small cell, in one's experience, leads to less mites does not mean that small cell causes less mites. To me, saying that it is okay to discount a study because it conflicts with personal experience is simply being closed-minded to the possibility that one's personal experience has led to wrong assumptions -- and in the absence of an experiment they are assumptions -- about causation. 

On the other hand, one study should not eliminate the benefits of experience. In fact, when one study conflicts with experience, one possibility is that there is something wrong with the experiment. That could happen in two ways. First, it could be that the experiment has a design flaw and that something about the way it was done does not accurately show causation. For example, in the case of small cell, maybe there is something to the idea that mixing SC and LC hives in one yard leads to drift that moves the mites around. The other way that could happen is just bad luck. Statistics and estimations are involved. A result "three deviations from the mean" is unlikely but possible. The best way to avoid that possibility, assuming the experment's design is not flawed, would be to do it again. 

In the case of small cell, I think its pretty complicated, for several reasons I can think of and some I probably don't recognize. First, there are lots of factors that could have an effect, so it could be hard to design an experiment. Second, there seems to be a lot of people with experience which seems to show that small cell worked, at least for them. Third, there is another pretty obvious factor that is, in my opinion, at least at play and could account for everything -- genetics/natural selection. Fourth, the actual, mechanical explanation for why small cell works is, to me, is at least arguably wrong.

Finally, I don't think that, despite its difficulties, it makes sense to throw out the scientific method. I personally don't want to take any drug based upon a drug company's general assertion that "in our general experience, it works and its safe." Drugs get yanked because further experience and experiments show that its a good idea. Techniques -- in beekeeping and virtually any other field -- sometimes meet similar fates, with good reason

Just my two cents, and I ain't a scientist.

ndvan


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Part of the problem here is that there is a HUGE difference between empirical or mathematical evidence, such as Galileo presented, and statistical proof, such as the study on chocolate making you live longer. Some things can actually be proven. Statistical evidence only narrows the likelihood of something being true. I can never actually prove it true.

And, yes, the Bible was "peer" reviewed on several occasions and pared down to the 66 books we now have by those reviews. A few of the books, like Job, Ester and Song of Solomon only made it by the skin of their teeth.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Michael Bush said:


> such as the study on chocolate making you live longer.


Michael, statments like this will only make you lose credibility, their accuracy not withstanding. 

I am alive today only because I supplied chocolate to the right person at a the precise right time. So it works for me!

Keith


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Seems like some wear a tin foil hat and others wear a white lab coat. One group denigrates the other's observations as anecdotal. The other disdains the scientific study. Sounds like much the same kind of behavior from both groups.

And that's not surprising seeing we all use the same senses, have the same limitations of our human brain and live in the same physical world.

Charging ahead with grandpa's anecdote or the latest scientifically study are equally prone to failure. Extrapolations from the anecdotal may not be based on fact, but the results may have been proven through time. While the scientific may be based on fact. But due to limitations noted above, it might be based on too few facts to actually be true, let alone useful.

So, what to do? Use the your senses, intellect and experience. They are as good as grandpas and certainly as good as anyone else's whether peer reviewed or not.

Neither Leonardo, Newton, Pasteur, Edison, to name a few, were constrained by or needed grandpas approval or proof from the scientific method before exploring the possibilities of their own observations. 

I think there are more people, like those mentioned above, than are generally recognized. They may never achieve world acclaim. But they have the same kind of curiosity, the same sense of exploration and joy of discovery when serendipity shines on their efforts. 

I also think bees and the beeyard are a fertile incubator for this kind of experience. The physical, biological and spiritual elements are brought together in an unstructured way that enhances observation, speculation, ponderings and scientific study. Neat huh.

So, bring on the ancedotal, the experience, the scientific. If it differs from my own, lets use the power of the net and talk about it. No one has a corner on the truth.

And if we can recognize that our own limitations are the same as others, then there's no need to either defend or attack some else's views. I don't manage bees because I observed and invented it all. Rather, it's an amalgamation and tweaking of what many others have tried.

Have a great new year guys.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## ScadsOBees (Oct 2, 2003)

Keith Benson said:


> To use them to the exclusion of modern medical techniques in many instances would be best described as opting for the primitive approach. To suggest that there is no place for them in the practice of medicine is silly, but to suggest that they were once used as wisely as they would be today, or that the rational behind using them in the past was equivalent to that of today would be equally as silly.


Right, but my point in this thread is that there was anecdotal evidence that certain things worked when nothing else would, probably did in some of the original cases, a whole bunch of people jumped on the bandwagon and started using them, found out that it wasn't working for them (misuse, misapplication), a bunch of studies (controlled and not) were done on the latter applications, and those things were abandoned altogether because everybody was told that it doesn't work or is harmful or there is a better way, and only now are we finding out that there was a reason some of these things started in the first place, and work in the proper application.

Now apply that to small cell.

There is a place in the middle that sees and evaluates both sides. I don't think anybody disagrees. The trouble is that a scientific study usually can't look at more than one factor, and beehives are just a little bit hard to control. And anecdotes are not proven.

But then again, I'm not a scientist, I just like to try stuff. And I'm happy to share with others what works and don't for me, and like to read about what works and don't for others.



> PS: The golden years are only golden in retrospect.


Yeah, I'm with you there!! I would still be a little squeemish about sticking maggots on a sore or leeches, sterility not withstanding.


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

Well said Dennis:

I'm not sure if it's getting older and wiser, or older and more causious, but I find I like the middle of the road a lot better than I used to. Trouble is you need to be able to move to one side or the other when conditions indicate it's better to. Probably why most politicians are old men/women, and most scientific discoveries are made by younger men and women.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

BWrangler's statement needs to be FRAMED!

It should be part of the "introduction" to BeeSource


----------



## Everett (Feb 25, 2007)

*Skepticism*

I admit it, I am a scientist. I'll say this, be skeptical, it's better for you when you are. Tell everyone about it, its better for all of us when you do.


----------



## Oldbee (Sep 25, 2006)

"I admit it, I am a scientist". - Everett.

Your "public" profile says [sorry,. I was curious] you are as lumberjack. Well,.... I guess you can be a "lumberjack"....... and a scientist at the same time.

Anyway,..........enjoying reading the thread/comments;... interesting.

"BWrangler's statement needs to be FRAMED......." Dave W. I agree. Well,........I agree because many have added comments that are quite erudite already.


----------



## Ardilla (Jul 17, 2006)

The research papers published in the journals can always be considered preliminary. It is rare that the follow-up studies or review papers that report a general consensus are published or read widely. The blemishes and limitations are generally explicit so that others can test and improve on the studies. Most in the scientific community take the research for what it is.

When others try to apply the research to real-world conditions they often extrapolate the findings further that what the data actually are relavent for. This is normal - but we shouldn't be all that surprised when individual results vary.

Michael Bush suggested that the research be viewed with common sense - I generally agree with one caution. Common sense is not 'common' among us all. Our commion sense is often a good logic to follow - though sometimes it is dead wrong and we don't realize it. Oh, how our big brains get us in trouble...


----------



## Devbee (Feb 23, 2007)

*Faith and Reason*

I am a fellow beekeeper and also a Catholic who converted from atheism several years ago, and I read this entire discussion.

I encourage those who posted about Galileo and his allegedly harsh treatment by the Church to read a truer account here. 

Additionally, the Catholic Church has supported science for centuries, and many of the most prominent and influential scientists have been Christians.

Religion is often portrayed as "pure faith" without any rational thought: This idea is called fideism and has some problems, which John Paul II eloquently explained in his letter Fides et Ratio (faith and reason), which I encourage you to read. 

One excerpt:"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves."​Science seeks the truth about the material world, which it can measure and experiment upon. 

Philosophy and theology seek the truth about who the human person is and who God is.

These realms are not mutually exclusive, and one cannot replace the other; if this is the "middle" view, as some have said, then I think that is the best way. I would call it the "balanced" view, that doesn't throw the baby out with the bath water, whether in religion or in science.

Devin


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

I have a MAJOR problem with this thread. Each and every one who has replied has ignored the actual problem that has occurred.

Whether or not we accept scientific method and reasoning is a decision each of us must make for ourselves. In the end, a consensus will be reached and we will go forward. Where I have a problem is with the treatment that Jennifer Berry has been subjected to. I've read some very vituperative verbal assaults aimed not at the research, but rather at Jennifer. No matter what you believe or don't believe re small cell, NEVER shoot the messenger!

Without going into opinions, here are the questions each of us should ask Jennifer to consider based on her results.

1. Mites move from colony to colony presumably by phoretic transfer during foraging and also when bees drift between colonies. From the description, I am presuming that both small cell and large cell colonies were at the same location. Did your experiment include any effort to measure and/or prevent such drift?

2. You clearly showed mites in the cells for both large cell and small cell colonies. Did you also take any steps to prove that these mites were able to reproduce normally in both cell sizes? Is there a possibility that proportionally fewer mites emerge from brood cells as adults for one cell size vs the other?

3. The biggest and most unexplained effect of small cell was the larger population size. Do you have any speculation on reasons why the small cell colonies were larger? Could the larger colony size be significant in understanding the final mite population?



Some questions do not have simple answers. Whether or not small cell works is a matter that will be resolved over time. None of us is in a position to "challenge" the results until we have dug through the conditions and understand the variables involved. Jennifer's experiment was designed to seek answers to two questions:
1. Does small cell help control mite populations?
2. If so, how does it achieve this result?

The only answer found so far is that small cell does not reduce mite populations in and of itself. Instead of blasting out about the result, why not ask yourself what else might be going on with colonies on small cell.

DarJones


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Fusion_power said:


> Where I have a problem is with the treatment that Jennifer Berry has been subjected to. I've read some very vituperative verbal assaults aimed not at the research, but rather at Jennifer. No matter what you believe or don't believe re small cell, NEVER shoot the messenger!


Let's be clear, this hasn't been part of this discussion. No one has mentioned Berry. I agree, never shoot the messenger.

- Barry


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Fusion_power said:


> 3. The biggest and most unexplained effect of small cell was the larger population size. Do you have any speculation on reasons why the small cell colonies were larger? Could the larger colony size be significant in understanding the final mite population?


Funny, I asked the same question but didn't get any positive feedback.

- Barry


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

ndvan writes:
Here's a hypothetical that I think might illustrate this. Suppose, instead of using chemicals, I put a quartz crystal on my hive covers. After three years, I noticed a that my hives no longer had mites. I could speculate that the crystals trapped some energy that killed the mites. However, that's downright goofy, and I would not believe it for a minute. But what if I did an experiment that showed that the crystal seemed to, for whatever reason, actually be a cause. Then, I'd want to do the experiment a few more times. But I suppose that enough experiments would establish causation.

tecumseh replies:
you would have to "next" establish a mechanism between the crystal and no mites to satisfy most scientific types.

michael bush writes:
Statistical evidence only narrows the likelihood of something being true. I can never actually prove it true.

tecumseh suggest:
a good study using proper methodology and samples sizes reflective of the population being measured should tell you 1) what you know about that population and 2)what you don't know about that population.

as betrand russell suggested every 'great revelation' in thinking becomes a hurdle to the next 'great revelation' in regards to what we know and how we think about things.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Ummmmm........wow. How many people posting on this thread have ever work professionally doing science? I'm not saying that you have to be a plumber to flush the toilette, but there seems to be some *really* large misconceptions here about how science is done, what its good for, who does it and what kinds of questions it can answer when properly used. Political, religeous, and social issues aside, beekeeping is barely associated with professional science, and only then as it pertains to issues that most of us would regard as inconsequential (evolutionary biology, ecological modelling, behavioral neurogenetics). One paper probably doesn't mean ANYTHING, regardless of who did it, even if it was done very well. Most review articles of even the narrowist of fields will typically cite 50-200 other papers from the last 5 years alone.


----------



## Sarge (Jun 26, 2006)

The problem for many of us, Aspers, is the large numbers of people who take every paper and theory as gospel. Watch any issue and the credance is given to those with the position titles and the letters after their names.
We don't require the supporting data, we don't ask for their backrounds in the issue, we just buy in based on their credits from a school. And that willingness to accept has led us to some expensive, long lasting errors.
Yes I like to see science questioned. I like to see their positions challenged and tested and studied. Because that is the only way to get the full picture. I, or any other non-titled degreed individual, cannot attack a position. We lack the credentials to be believed. But another scientist can attack and get the full story out. And that requires someone to cause them to take a second look and get interested in the issue.
That is our only tool, the power to yell and make noise.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

(Funny, I asked the same question but didn't get any positive feedback.)

I would think with smaller cells we get more cells per square inch, less time for the queen between cells, more eggs layed, less capped time, more bees hatch as a result. To go a step further, more bees (larger populations) allow for more individuals per caste, more individuals - House bees, result in more individuals dedicated to controlling pests. Say for example, we have an extra 500 bees per caste in mid summer (just a gestimation) and out of those 500 bees, 200 end up on mite crunching duty. How many mites could 200 more house bees crunch a day than in a large cell hive? Ultimately we'd have less adult mites to weaken hives and ultimately end up with less mites breeding and over the long run a downward trend in mite populations occur.

Just my thoughts!


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

tecumseh replies:
you would have to "next" establish a mechanism between the crystal and no mites to satisfy most scientific types.

Tecumseh, 

If somebody designed an experiment that actually showed that a crystal on the hive cover causes less mites, it would probably identify a mechanism in the process. My point in using that example is that its really hard to imagine, much less identify, a mechanism for how crystals would reduce mite levels. 

My other point about the crystal example is that I think there is a decent chance that if a beekeeper started puting crystals on hive covers and not treating, due to natural selection, there actually would be fewer mites per hive in three years (and fewer surviving hives). To me the question on small cell is whether it has the same effect as a crystal. In other words, does the small cell really do anything or is this just a case of adaptation over time. I don't claim to know the answer to that one.

Jennifer Berry's study seems to be a good start, and her initial results were not promising for SC. I would like to see the experiment continued and repeated. I would also like to see the LC and SC hives separated to eliminate the drift argument (although that would throw a different variable into the mix at the same time). The real problem is lack of funds to pay for the costs of research and qualified people to do it. 

I would also like to seem some people who have small cell bees with little or no mites put their bees on large cell and see what happens. I think Bwrangler posted somewhere that he did and the mite levels went up. However, there was also a recent poll which showed that a majority of LC beekeepers who do not treat for varroa do not have significant problems. I also read a summary of a study in a Bee Culture about a year ago that reported that when varroa treatments were not done on an isolated population of bees, most hives died but then after three years the survivors were varrao tolerant. 

My real opinions, in response to Michael's initial post, is simply that: (1) scientific studies are difficult to design, and involve statistics; so (2) one study has to be taken with a grain of salt in light of the results of actual practice; but (3) it is also just plain wrong to reject the results of a study just because it does not comport with practical experience. Given that the SC supporters cannot identify a mechanism for why it does work, I think that this is a case where studies need to be given real consideration. 

Once again, this issue is relevant and interesting to me, in part, because I have used SC and experienced virtually no mites in my one and only hive. 

Now I need to get to work putting some equipment together so I'll have more hives to speculate about this time next year. 

Happy New Year to all,

Ndvan


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

MB says


> The issue is how much faith you put in a study as opposed to real experience.


So, a 'study' is somehow different from 'real experience'? In the case of testing a treatment (small cell) on bees, the only difference is the study would be recorded in detail and designed to reduce variety between hives so that the test is replicated. But its still based in reality and is an experience.

Why should I have 'faith' as you put it, in your experience that is not documented as well as someones experience that is more documented and more targeted at a specific thing that I have a question about?

(the following two quotes from other posters, sorry I didn't keep up with names as I was cutting and pasting)



> When you start to believe in science as the end answer you have elevated science to a religion.


How about, 'When you start to believe in small cell as the end answer you have elevated small cell to a religion.' That has a nice ring to it as well.



> The problem for many of us, Aspers, is the large numbers of people who take every paper and theory as gospel.


Whom are these large numbers of people? They certainly wouldn't be any scientist or people interested in science that I know.

how about this statement instead. 'The problem for many of us, Aspers, is the large numbers of beekeepers who take every idea and theory proposed on beesource as gospel, such as small cell or FGMO.' Both statements are pretty generalized accusations that say the same thing about different groups of people.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

MichaelW said:


> So, a 'study' is somehow different from 'real experience'?


I would have to say yes. "Real experience" comes at you without any "equalization" of the paying field, without only looking at (focusing on) one part of the equation but rather looking at the whole. A study (in beekeeping) is a step in the process of understanding, but will never be able to take into account all the variables that are inherent.



> In the case of testing a treatment (small cell) on bees, the only difference is the study would be recorded in detail and designed to reduce variety between hives so that the test is replicated. But its still based in reality and is an experience.


When you take steps to eliminate variety, you don't think you are now changing to a degree, reality?



> Why should I have 'faith' as you put it, in your experience that is not documented as well as someones experience that is more documented and more targeted at a specific thing that I have a question about?


I think one should not discount either one, but use both to arrive at an even better understanding.

- Barry


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> A study (in beekeeping) is a step in the process of understanding, but will never be able to take into account all the variables that are inherent. -Barry


The point is to identify the crucial components, not just "what works."

If I told you that my car wasn't running, so I replaced the alternater, the muffler, the battery, the engine, the transmission, the radiator, any and all belts and the steering wheel, which one caused the car to run again? Now, let's say that your car isn't running, too, so I suggest replacing the steering wheel because, when my car wasn't running, changing the steering wheel was one of the things I did and my car ran again after the replacement. Would you try replacing the steering wheel before making any other repairs? Why or why not?

So, when people tell me that they forced a group of bees through an stiff evolutionary selection process to get "small cell" bees, changed the ways they manipulate their bees, changed the stock they use in their bees, changed the equipment they use, then expect to convince me that it's "only the small cell" that matters and as long as I use nothing but small cell my bees will survive _Varroa_, why shouldn't I wonder if it's the size of the cells or something else or several things in combination?



> I think one should not discount either one, but use both to arrive at an even better understanding. -Barry


True. But comparing "apples to apples," scientific studies often begin from undocumented experiences and attempt to reach some conclusions of predicatibility.

If the treatments in the experience worked, and continue to work, fine and well.

But, if the treatments do not work consistently (using "science" to make predictions about the world around us), why recommend using them?

In the case of "small cell" (and I believe that's what this thread is really covering), the studies to date are not demonstrating what some people with experience have reported. So, either "small cell" alone provides less benefit (if any) than has been proclaimed, or something in the studies has been done differently. And if that difference is not strictly the size of the cells, than we're back to the "other variables" argument, and those other variables need identification and testing.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

> When you take steps to eliminate variety, you don't think you are now changing to a degree, reality?


Absolutely not. I do things in my bee yard all the time to decrease variety. It makes things run much smoother and more efficient. In the case of my natural cell study, the biggest difference in the two sets of hives in that study is the use or not use of 5.4mm foundation. With that difference being the biggest difference in the two groups, you can get a clearer picture of if there is a difference in mite numbers due to the use or absence of 5.4mm foundation. In this case, science is very simple.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> The point is to identify the crucial components, not just "what works."
> 
> If I told you that my car wasn't running, so I replaced the alternater, the muffler, the battery, the engine, the transmission, the radiator, any and all belts and the steering wheel, which one caused the car to run again? Now, let's say that your car isn't running, too, so I suggest replacing the steering wheel because, when my car wasn't running, changing the steering wheel was one of the things I did and my car ran again after the replacement. Would you try replacing the steering wheel before making any other repairs? Why or why not?


Can we really compare a mechanical object with a living organism? A car doesn't have the ability to adapt to a change. Bees do. You remove the steering wheel, you can't turn the wheels. The car doesn't compensate by reorganizing it's linkage so you can steer it with the gas pedal.



> So, when people tell me that they forced a group of bees through an stiff evolutionary selection process to get "small cell" bees, changed the ways they manipulate their bees, changed the stock they use in their bees, changed the equipment they use, then expect to convince me that it's "only the small cell" that matters and as long as I use nothing but small cell my bees will survive _Varroa_, why shouldn't I wonder if it's the size of the cells or something else or several things in combination?


The experience is quite consistent with those that have gone through the process of changing over to SC. There is a pattern that most observe for themselves that others see as well when they go through the process. All of us on this board said the same thing when we heard the results of the Berry study. "We want to see how the results play out after two or three years have gone by." Why? Because we have all seen an elevated mite population before it went way down to a point where we stop seeing mites.

So, what does the Berry study tell us? What if I don't keep both SC and LC hives together? My experience was totally eliminating all LC combs in my apiary and using only SC comb. I suppose the scientific method is trapped by it's own making. A catch-22. You must alter/control/manipulate at least part of any experiment in order to get the data you want, but in so doing, you also have an impact on the bees and most likely the results. 

- Barry


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Why should I have 'faith' as you put it, in your experience that is not documented as well as someones experience that is more documented and more targeted at a specific thing that I have a question about?

You would be a fool to take ANYONE'S experience on "faith", of course, including mine. If you haven't tested it yourself, then it's just "faith".

It might be worth experimenting based on other's experience, but that doesn't mean you blindly accept it as fact.

The reality is that what happens in your climate, in your beeyard, with your bees, with your forage, is far more useful to you than what happens in someone else's beeyard or in a lab.


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

>> I wonder if it's the size of the cells or something else or several things in combination?-Kieck

I've said this before.... but... Folks on small-cell ALSO tend to be the types who will use minimal to no varroa treatments. This alone has shown to produce "survivor" colonies on LC that will thrive. Usually after a significant loss. Is it the cell-size or is it the low to no treatment that is producing varroa resistance/tolerance or is it a combination of both? 

I personally believe it has more to do with the minimal treatments that most of these folks do. I don't have SC experience at all. My only knowledge comes from SC advocates, studies I've read, and the naysayers. Does small-cell contribute? Certainly if the capping time is less it may definately contribute to less mites being able to reach maturity in each generation. 

Is SC the silver bullet? I tend to doubt it. I think it has more to do with the overall management approach than cell-size specifications.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Can we really compare a mechanical object with a living organism? -Barry


The point was not a comparison between a mechanical object and an organism, but an attempt to point out that variables other than the one in question were not controlled.

Several variables changed when the proponents of "small cell" converted to using smaller cell, yet the only one cited is "small cell."

Let's get back to bees, then, if it will help you out, but stay away from _Varroa_ for the time being. Hypothetically, let's say that I wish to increase the populations of my hives very early in the spring (before natural timing). In my efforts to induce my bees to begin rearing brood earlier in the year, I begin feeding pollen substitute several weeks before the first natural pollen source is available, I begin providing sugar syrup at the same time, I install electric heaters under the hives, I paint all the hives darker to "increase solar gain," and I switch to only using Carniolan bees. I get the rapid build-up in the hives that I desire.

Now, you (for the sake of the argument) wish to accomplish the same rapid build-up with your bees. You ask me what I do to make it work, and I tell you, "Paint the hives very dark colors to increase solar gain. When I did that, my bees built up earlier in the spring."

Do you believe me? Why or why not?



> "We want to see how the results play out after two or three years have gone by." Why? Because we have all seen an elevated mite population before it went way down to a point where we stop seeing mites. -Barry


Precisely why I used the phrase "stiff evolutionary selection process." What if you had done everything the same, but not switched to "small cell?" Would you have seen similar results? Some beekeepers claim they have done just that, and have seen similar results. So, is it the size of the cells, then, or is it the process of selection by exposing the bees to mites and only having the survivors left?



> You must alter/control/manipulate at least part of any experiment in order to get the data you want, but in so doing, you also have an impact on the bees and most likely the results. -Barry


Yes. But the key is isolating the variable you wish to test and keeping all other variables the same so that only the variable in question gets tested. Otherwise, you're back to the car example, or the spring build-up example. If you alter a number of variables, you have difficulty saying that only a single variable of those that were altered had any real effect, unless you can isolate that one variable somehow.



> It might be worth experimenting based on other's experience, but that doesn't mean you blindly accept it as fact. -Michael Bush


Right. But, given probabilities, I'll stick with the recommendations based on scientific studies.

And your statement cuts both ways. In the case of small cell, researchers who have not blindly accepted the experiences of those who have switched to small cell have had difficulty reproducing the expected results. So, while you may not want to blindly accept the researchers results, you shouldn't be offended when others do not blindly accept the experiences of the small-cell advocates.



> Is it the cell-size or is it the low to no treatment that is producing varroa resistance/tolerance or is it a combination of both? -Dan Williamson


I agree. Is it one, or is it the other, or is it some combination? The problem, though, is that attempts to tease out the answer to this question seem to offend some beekeepers.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I've said this before.... but... Folks on small-cell ALSO tend to be the types who will use minimal to no varroa treatments. This alone has shown to produce "survivor" colonies on LC that will thrive. 

This would require a large number of them to die and a small number of resistant ones to survive. Dee may have gone through that, but that has not been the experience of most of us. Mine ALL died while still treating and trying to regress due to Apistan resistance. Since starting over with just commercial bees, they did not die but simply did quite well with no treatments. Of course I then started rearing the feral survivor queens where they had already taken their losses in the wild, not in my hives. But they were doing fine already at that point. Certainly there are other aspects to the solution to Varroa, such as resistant bees, but just not treating them and letting them die never got me anywhere. I did that for several years and just lost them all every time. There were no survivors to breed from.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

Barry writes:
Can we really compare a mechanical object with a living organism? 

tecumseh suggest:
well betrand russel suggested that for about +1000 years science really accomplished very little until it realized it was asking the wrong question. prior to the enlightenment science was focus on the question of why and produced very little to show for the effort. then science shifted the question to how...which is why most science type folks will insist that once you demonstate a relationship you provide some explanation of mechanism as to how this realtionship works.

I would agree that a mechanical object is much simplier than a living organism (and I tend to like automotive examples since everyone is familar with there basic operation) but to move from wives tales to science you will at some point need to demonstrate how the mechanism works.

another typically unstated limition of science is it is proposed to be totally objective in nature (I think??? a lot of folks are drifting around this point) when it fact any act of designing an experiment or observing an experiment or operating an experiement tends to reflect this subjective influence of the scientist on the final outcome. real scientist (folks that are more interested in the question than the little bit of fame, or money, they achieve in revealing some new truth) first off understand appropriate statistical design that minimize (or negates) this subjective influence. the other kind of scientist will write anything to get their 15 minutes of fame and their one or two publication... the science world equivalent of taking coup (koo).


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

NDvan writes first:
If somebody designed an experiment that actually showed that a crystal on the hive cover causes less mites, it would probably identify a mechanism in the process. My point in using that example is that its really hard to imagine, much less identify, a mechanism for how crystals would reduce mite levels.

tecumseh comments:
yes there are such thing as the plasibo (probably spelled wrong) effect but proper experienmental design will get you around this hurdle. on the other hand how many folks can recall the scientific thinking around the idea of light therapy? back when I was a young man it was considered to be junk science. then many years later when people began to ACCUMULATE a lot of information (relative to almost zero) about how the brain worked a working mechanism was detemined for how light therapy operated. 


then ndvan writes
My real opinions, in response to Michael's initial post, is simply that: (1) scientific studies are difficult to design, and involve statistics; so (2) one study has to be taken with a grain of salt in light of the results of actual practice; but (3) it is also just plain wrong to reject the results of a study just because it does not comport with practical experience. Given that the SC supporters cannot identify a mechanism for why it does work, I think that this is a case where studies need to be given real consideration. 

Once again, this issue is relevant and interesting to me, in part, because I have used SC and experienced virtually no mites in my one and only hive.

tecumseh replies:
I would think (this is simply how my brain works) when I got to #3 I would ask how does my practices and the practices as described in the experiment differ. if there was no difference in the two and the results were (statistically significant) different then I would have serious question in regards to the study and the person doing the experiment.

for the $$$$ associated with current and future funding some science folks will 'give them' what they want. like most people in the general population... SOME people will lie, cheat and steal for a few bucks.

your one hive is a good example of where sufficient numbers (enough to properly describe the population you are making some statement about) is important in regards to proper statistical design. with one hive (statistics typically employs a n-l calculation where n represent the sample size for leveling statistical data) statistics would have 'zero' (read 0) confidence that the sample represented the population you were trying to describe. however... most science begins from a casual observation made in regards to a small sample size just as you might in regards to your one hive. you could have made a much stonger conclusion if you are started a similar hive using regular cells at the same time and compared the two trying to keep as many things (like beginning resources and the queen origin) as close to the same as possible*.

*chaos theory would suggest to us (there are general characteristics for when chaos may be in play) that even small difference in initial conditions can accumlated to yield huge differences in end results.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> If you believe every study that comes along, your world is in total chaos.


And if you deny every one???


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Fusion_power said:


> I have a MAJOR problem with this thread. Where I have a problem is with the treatment that Jennifer Berry has been subjected to. I've read some very vituperative verbal assaults aimed not at the research, but rather at Jennifer.
> DarJones


I've followed much of the responses to Jennifer's study here and elsewhere and haven't read anything as bad as you've seen. Where did you see those 'very vituperative verbal assaults '? I'd like to see them. If you will direct me to them I'll gladly see that Jennifer has a chance to look at them as well.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Sarge said:


> The problem for many of us, Aspers, is the large numbers of people who take every paper and theory as gospel. Watch any issue and the credance is given to those with the position titles and the letters after their names.
> We don't require the supporting data, we don't ask for their backrounds in the issue, we just buy in based on their credits from a school. And that willingness to accept has led us to some expensive, long lasting errors.


Sarge, Scientific research is much like any other profession. Some folks are good at it and some are bad.....The bad ones are usually sifted out under the scrutiny of peer review. They quickly fade into oblivion, regardless of how many degrees, titles and letters follow their names.
You really need to get over this envy thing. It aint pretty. Its too bad you didn't make it through college, then your moniker might be 'Captain'. As it is, just make the most of who you are.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

beemandan writes:
I've followed much of the responses to Jennifer's study here and elsewhere and haven't read anything as bad as you've seen. Where did you see those 'very vituperative verbal assaults '? I'd like to see them. If you will direct me to them I'll gladly see that Jennifer has a chance to look at them as well.

tecumseh scribes:
you are much too level beemandan.... how refreshing.

most time with folks that honestly pursue questions with scientific credentials (and who are properly and rigorlously trained in their profession***) can explain quite simply why they did some thing that may be questioned by others (typically folks who are not so familar with a particular field of study).

***
this is to indireclty suggest that currently (don't know if it is or has always been so) we have a lot of folks with manufactured diplomas and degrees (and yes even a phd or dr may follow their names) who's OPINION you might wish to question. and often.

just my opinion... 
just my two cents....


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Where did you see those 'very vituperative verbal assaults '? I'd like to see them. If you will direct me to them I'll gladly see that Jennifer has a chance to look at them as well.

Yes. I haven't seen anything said bad about her or her study. Just questions as to why she got different results than those of us who are using small cell and trying to find the differences, is all I've seen.


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

tecumseh comments:
yes there are such thing as the plasibo (probably spelled wrong) effect but proper experienmental design will get you around this hurdle. 

ndvan replies:

In the case of bees, I don't think they're smart enough to have a placebo effect, which has a psychological basis, but maybe the beekeeper could have one. However, bees do have genetic variation that could be hard to eliminate as an unintended variable in an experiment.



tecumseh replies:
I would think (this is simply how my brain works) when I got to #3 I would ask how does my practices and the practices as described in the experiment differ. if there was no difference in the two and the results were (statistically significant) different then I would have serious question in regards to the study and the person doing the experiment.

Ndvan replies:

Generally, I agree with your drift, but I would not make it personal as to the person doing the experiment. The way experiments work is by having a control, a variable and then a comparison. The problem may be that there is more than one variable (such as genetics) that has an effect that is not realized. Maybe some variable is just hidden. Point is, smart honest scientists can have flaws in experiments.


Tecumseh says:

your one hive is a good example of where sufficient numbers (enough to properly describe the population you are making some statement about) is important in regards to proper statistical design. with one hive (statistics typically employs a n-l calculation where n represent the sample size for leveling statistical data) statistics would have 'zero' (read 0) confidence that the sample represented the population you were trying to describe. however... 

ndvan replies: Absolutely right there.


Tecumseh says:

most science begins from a casual observation made in regards to a small sample size just as you might in regards to your one hive. 


Agreed, but that would just be the start, not the proof and not the experiment. 


I want to add that I also don't see any bashing of Ms. Berry personally or of her study. Some people are admittedly disappointed in the results (I think that includes her, for that matter). However, just because somebody does not like or even disagrees with the results does not equate to an attack on her. I personally watched the video of her presentation and was very impressed with her and her experiment.

Nice talking to you all.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> The point was not a comparison between a mechanical object and an organism, but an attempt to point out that variables other than the one in question were not controlled.
> 
> Several variables changed when the proponents of "small cell" converted to using smaller cell, yet the only one cited is "small cell."


Yes, you can make a case of this. But I'm making the same case when one tries to scientifically prove "it" when it comes to a living organism as you can't really control something that has the ability to change when confronted with change/control.

In regards to what I did when switching to SC, changing the cell size and not using any treatments were the only changes. What are the other variables you see with what I did?



> Let's get back to bees, then, if it will help you out, but stay away from _Varroa_ for the time being. Hypothetically, let's say that I wish to increase the populations of my hives very early in the spring (before natural timing). In my efforts to induce my bees to begin rearing brood earlier in the year, I begin feeding pollen substitute several weeks before the first natural pollen source is available, I begin providing sugar syrup at the same time, I install electric heaters under the hives, I paint all the hives darker to "increase solar gain," and I switch to only using Carniolan bees. I get the rapid build-up in the hives that I desire.
> 
> Now, you (for the sake of the argument) wish to accomplish the same rapid build-up with your bees. You ask me what I do to make it work, and I tell you, "Paint the hives very dark colors to increase solar gain. When I did that, my bees built up earlier in the spring."
> 
> Do you believe me? Why or why not?


I would first think through your logic, and if it was reasonable (which it isn't due to the many changes you made), I would try it myself to see if it worked for me.



> "We want to see how the results play out after two or three years have gone by." Why? Because we have all seen an elevated mite population before it went way down to a point where we stop seeing mites. -Barry
> 
> Precisely why I used the phrase "stiff evolutionary selection process." What if you had done everything the same, but not switched to "small cell?" Would you have seen similar results? Some beekeepers claim they have done just that, and have seen similar results. So, is it the size of the cells, then, or is it the process of selection by exposing the bees to mites and only having the survivors left?


What we learn from history is that when we didn't treat for mites, bees died. That has been well documented. So to chose to suddenly not treat against varroa would have given me dead bees. The only change made was converting to SC. I don't see this being complicated.



> "You must alter/control/manipulate at least part of any experiment in order to get the data you want, but in so doing, you also have an impact on the bees and most likely the results. -Barry"
> 
> Yes. But the key is isolating the variable you wish to test and keeping all other variables the same so that only the variable in question gets tested.


Do you feel this was done with the Berry study? Is it truly possible to keep all other variables the same? Again, I am not in any way being disrespectful of Jennifer Berry.

- Barry


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> In regards to what I did when switching to SC, changing the cell size and not using any treatments were the only changes. What are the other variables you see with what I did? -Barry


I'm not sure. Changed stock, perhaps? (If all your previous bees died, you must have had different bees than you did before.) Started rotating out comb? Let them raise more drones? Let them raise fewer drones?

Most importatly, you forced them through a selective event. Those that could survive, did. Those that couldn't, didn't.

Did you maintain any colonies from the same genetic stock, with the same management strategies, except that those bees would be kept on "large cell?" If you didn't, how do you _know_ that those bees would not have survived?



> . . .(which it isn't due to the many changes you made), . . . -Barry


Precisely! Which is why, when most proponents of "small cell" tell me that they switched to small cell, stopped using chemical treatments, began rotating out comb more frequently, switched to bees from "feral" stock (or Russians, or Minnesota hygenics, or VSH, etc.), and so forth, I don't put much stock in the "small cell" claim alone.



> What we learn from history is that when we didn't treat for mites, bees died. That has been well documented. So to chose to suddenly not treat against varroa would have given me dead bees. The only change made was converting to SC. I don't see this being complicated. -Barry


More complicated, I believe, than you think. See, you're presuming that bees cannot adapt evolutionarily to overcome lethality to _Varroa_. If you truly believe that, then you must also believe that no one could breed bees that are "resistant" to _Varroa_. By the same reasoning, Russian bees cannot be inherently tolerant of mites, Minnesota hygenics offer no advantage against mites, "ferals" cannot have gone through a selective process that left only "resistant" or "tolerant" "feral" colonies.



> Do you feel this was done with the Berry study? Is it truly possible to keep all other variables the same? -Barry


I'd have to go back and and brush up on the specifics, but I believe they made a fair effort to do just that. Correct me if I'm wrong. The bees came from the same source (all shaken from one collective group). The hives were placed in the same locations. The management techniques were the same between the "small cell" and the "large cell" hives.

What variables do you see as differing between the treatments (used in the sense that "treatments" is used in describing scientific studies)? 

Obviously, individual queens will differ somewhat genetically. 

But the other differences could not have been very great, since Berry's study revealed no significant differences in mite loads between the two treatments. If genetic differences were significant, and resistance or tolerance to mites is controlled genetically, then the differences should have produced significantly different mite loads. If locations resulted in different mite loads, differences should have appeared there.

They didn't. No significant differences appeared.

In fact, the variables in this study produced no significant variation in mite loads. So *all* of the variables in this study seemed to have no effect on mite populations. Even the variable that differed between the treatments (the cell sizes of the comb).

Large sample sizes tend to overcome variability in other variables, as long as the other variables are randomly distributed. For instance, if half of the bees showed hygienic tendencies, and those hygienic colonies were assigned to the "large cell" treatment, then that variable is not random in this study. If half of the hygienic bees are assigned to the "large cell" treatment and half to the "small cell" treatment, then those differences should be overcome by the randomization. 

Now, proponents of "small cell" are discounting Berry's study by claiming that mites "level" in population among close hives, and other statements. In my mind Berry demonstrated that cell size may play less role in mite populations than has been proclaimed. If cell size is so vitally significant, and if mite populations can so easily be reduced simply by switching to smaller cell sizes, why didn't those differences appear in Berry's study? Simple answer: the variables in the experiment didn't affect the results, so either the variables have no real effect, or the variables didn't differ enough to produce any effect.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> Now, proponents of "small cell" are discounting Berry's study by claiming that mites "level" in population among close hives, and other statements.


No one has discounted the study. The study is the study. Still leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

The craziness of the whole thing is the list is endless on what to study and how to structure it so it has meaning. The researcher can be too scientific for their own good. To a common man as myself just using common sense, if I was doing research into SC, I'd first start out trying to prove or disprove . . . NOTHING. I'd get several hives established on SC and observe. The questions needing answers will show themselves and the researcher will have a much better foundation to work from, having now had firsthand experience with SC. I guess this is just too simple and not enough "ist" involved.

- Barry


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> No one has discounted the study. -Barry


From what I've read here on BeeSource, a few beekeepers at least have attempted to discount or discredit the study by claiming that [paraphrasing here], "It didn't work because the hives were in close proximity to each other, and mites were migrating from the LC hives to the SC hives, i. e. 'leveling.'"

Why else would such statements be made? They were not made in efforts to support Berry's work, I'm confident.



> To a common man as myself just using common sense, if I was doing research into SC, I'd first start out trying to prove or disprove . . . NOTHING. -Barry


Fine. So, you establish several hives on SC and observe. And you observe that the bees can survive on so-called "small cell." You observe that the bees in such-and-such a location at such-and-such a time have "x" number of mites per bee or per hive or dropping per day. And you can report such things with accuracy. Those would all constitute "scientific facts."

But you can't claim that "SC hives have fewer mites than LC hives" because your observations make no effort to compare just the influence of the cell sizes, and you can't claim that "SC hives have more bees than LC hives" because you have nothing for direct comparison, and you can't claim that "smaller cell sizes offer control of _Varroa_ mites" because, again, you have no controls for comparison.

And "several hives" may not be enough to demonstrate much anyway.

For instance, let's say that I tell you that I've rolled a die of an unknown number of sides four times, and the numbers I've rolled were 2, 6, 2 and 9. What is the real probability of rolling a "2"? What is the probability of rolling a "7"? How many sides does this die have?



> The questions needing answers will show themselves and the researcher will have a much better foundation to work from, having now had firsthand experience with SC. -Barry


The big question, right now, is "do smaller cell sizes limit/control _Varroa_ populations?"

If switching to and using SC is really as simply as is often claimed to new beekeepers here on BeeSource, no "firsthand experience" should even be necessary.



> I guess this is just too simple and not enough "ist" involved. -Barry


No, I think it doesn't demonstrate much that isn't already known. Bees can use honeycomb with cells as small as 4.4mm in diameter. That's been published. Beekeepers can reduce the size of cells in their beehives. So what? What use comes out of it? Is any of it "publishable" in the scientific literature (specifically, the peer-reviewed literature)?


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

I wonder if it would it make sense for the scientists to *start* their research at the site of an established volunteer SC beekeeper. Why not go to where it is successful *already* and work backwards? 

When I was in the concrete admixture business, and we were in the lab testing for mix design efficiency, we would often use the method of working backwards off of a proven effective mix design. We would start with what was already documented as successful, and one step at a time, remove or reduce one of the constituents and track the effects. Eventually we would discover the breaking point in the design.

If there is a question that SC effectiveness in mite control is reliant on a *combination of factors* such as queen genetics, etc, why don't we *begin* our research where it is *currently working*? Then over time we could start altering or removing these specific factors one at a time, and it would become very apparent, when removed, which one causes the collapse of the system in it's absence.

I'm surely no scientist, but it seems if we truly want answers, we need to rethink the starting point of the research. Let's go to where it's *successful* and find out why, and stop trying to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> From what I've read here on BeeSource, a few beekeepers at least have attempted to discount or discredit the study by claiming that [paraphrasing here], "It didn't work because the hives were in close proximity to each other, and mites were migrating from the LC hives to the SC hives, i. e. 'leveling.'"
> 
> Why else would such statements be made? They were not made in efforts to support Berry's work, I'm confident.


"It didn't work"? What happened, happened. That still leaves one to wonder why it happened, unless you are seeing something in the study that makes it clear. Which again brings up the whole discussion about how one goes about setting up a study, controls, and all of that. All a researcher has to do is see if they can keep some SC hives going without treatments. If they are successful at that, let them analyze it every which way. But to try and take one element of SC and try to prove its validity is backwards in my thinking. Notice that none of us who have worked with SC started that way. We simply started keeping bees on SC and observed.

- Barry


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> No one has discounted the study.


Actually, the title of this thread is 'Discountinig Scientific Studies'. Are you suggesting that you don't believe that there is any connection between that title and this study?



Barry said:


> To a common man as myself just using common sense, if I was doing research into SC, I'd first start out trying to prove or disprove . . . NOTHING.


Unfortunately, that's exactly what you'd prove.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beemandan said:


> Actually, the title of this thread is 'Discountinig Scientific Studies'. Are you suggesting that you don't believe that there is any connection between that title and this study?


I'd believe it if it was stated that way, but it's not.



> _"To a common man as myself just using common sense, if I was doing research into SC, I'd first start out trying to prove or disprove . . . NOTHING." - Barry_
> 
> Unfortunately, that's exactly what you'd prove.


And that is exactly how I'd want it. The bees need to do the proving first!

- Barry


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Barry,

I respect you and I respect your opinion. In this instance, I don't accept the plausibility that you do not understand the motivation for this thread.

What you have stated does not prove anything at all. It does not even prove that the bees approve. As a concrete example, consider that for years we increased cellsize which resulted in larger bees, etc. Did the bees approve of the larger cells? or did they just use them? Think carefully about your answer, and then ask if the same concept could be applied to small cell.

I do not discount the findings of Jennifer's study. I do see some potential pitfalls indicating that some significant variables were not controlled. Those thoughts are posted a few pages back in this thread.

I have most of my bees on small cell and have not treated in 3 years. I am not one bit interested in going back to large cell.


There is an idea posted about starting with small cell bees and then moving things backward until something breaks. That is really an excellent approach and one that should be used in a serious study.

DarJones


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

>There is an idea posted about starting with small cell bees and then moving things backward until something breaks. That is really an excellent approach and one that should be used in a serious study.<

I thought that Jennifer Berry's study did use small cells bees, mixed them up and then put them on both small and large cell. I don't know whether she was consciously trying to do reverse engineering. I think she was mainly trying to avoid the regression issue for the bees that got put on small cell. Anybody know if that's wrong?

Also, other than the "drift theory" and unavoidable genetic differences between queens, what variables do people think were not taken into consideration?

Finally, as to what Barry said, I think its pretty obvious that the small cell study is what at least got Michael thinking about this topic. (I realize I'm not a mind reader, and I probably should not pretend to be one, but c'mon already.) Whether or not that was Michael's thought process, this thread headed to the small cell question, because that is an obvious progression of the topic.

For what its worth, I think this is a pretty interesting thread, even if it replowed the proverbial field in some ways. Thanks to Michael for getting it going.

Ndvan


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

ndvan said:


> I thought that Jennifer Berry's study did use small cells bees, mixed them up and then put them on both small and large cell. I don't know whether she was consciously trying to do reverse engineering. I think she was mainly trying to avoid the regression issue for the bees that got put on small cell. Anybody know if that's wrong?


You are right for the second yard started in spring 2007. Small cell bees were given sc and lc foundation to start their nests. In the summer 2006 yard conventional bees were given predrawn comb, either lc or sc.



ndvan said:


> Also, other than the "drift theory" and unavoidable genetic differences between queens, what variables do people think were not taken into consideration?


Drift sounds like the main complaint at the moment. On the other hand, if the two treatments had been in separate yards and the results the same, I expect that the sc folks would be arguing that the problem was that the yards were different. Queen genetics weren't an issue.



ndvan said:


> Finally, as to what Barry said, I think its pretty obvious that the small cell study is what at least got Michael thinking about this topic. (I realize I'm not a mind reader, and I probably should not pretend to be one, but c'mon already.) Whether or not that was Michael's thought process, this thread headed to the small cell question, because that is an obvious progression of the topic.


No doubt on both counts, in my opinion.


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

There really is no such thing as a scientific study that doesn't work. Even though it doesn't prove or disprove anything, nearly every study provides a grain of information that can be picked up by another researcher/or the original researcher, and used to help improve the next study. Except for rare instances of serindipity, most scientific information is the result of many consecutive or concurrent studies by experimentalists who accurately report their results which eventually are analysed by a theorist. The theorist then picks out the grains of fact and tries to put them all together into something that makes sense. Once the theorist is finished, then the experimentalists have to go back and try to disprove the theory. A single study is like a single brick in a wall. As long as it has a solid foundation, it will be built upon. The sum total of all the bricks put together can make a strong wall.

Even if Jeffifer's study only served to point out the uncontrolable variables in a small cell study, that by it'self has value. Likewise, all the critique in sources like this thread have value due to the fact that it is easier to see things exposed to the light of day.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Barry says


> But to try and take one element of SC and try to prove its validity is backwards in my thinking. Notice that none of us who have worked with SC started that way. We simply started keeping bees on SC and observed.


Which is why your success says nothing about weather or not SC works. 

I agree too that this thread, and much discussion, is setup to try and discount Berry's study, or any study that disagrees with small cell. Michael Bush makes the exclamation,


> AS THEY SHOULD!


in the first post talking about discounting scientific studies.

Its funny how someone outside science can sit around and talk about what scientists are talking about. As if scientists sit around and poo-poo studies in the journals till they make their's ( I guess not in the journal) look good. Good scientists are way to busy for that and their studies stand on their own feet. They do their work, publish, read, and keep on moving.


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

By suggesting that the SC study got this started, I was not suggesting that "this thread was set up to discount that study." I think that goes too far. 

Once again, I don't want to speak for others, but I think the actual attitude in the small cell beekeeper posts is more along these lines: "If what I am doing actually works for me, then why should I change my practices because one study indicates that small cell does not really work." That is more of a practical approach to how a beekeeper should do things, not a personal attack or a direct criticism of any study or scientist. 

I would like it if, with an open mind, some of the established small cell beekeepers would switch some hives in some yards to large cell, see what happens and report back.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

ndvan said:


> Once again, I don't want to speak for others, but I think the actual attitude in the small cell beekeeper posts is more along these lines: "If what I am doing actually works for me, then why should I change my practices because one study indicates that small cell does not really work." That is more of a practical approach to how a beekeeper should do things, not a personal attack or a direct criticism of any study or scientist.
> 
> I would like it if, with an open mind, some of the established small cell beekeepers would switch some hives in some yards to large cell, see what happens and report back.


I certainly don't read it that way. No one is asking them to change their practices. There is information being put out that beekeepers not on small cell should take into account before they decide to give it a go. Its good information and should not be 'discounted'. I haven't noticed anyone on here suggest small cell beeks should give it up.

I think your suggestion is a good idea and would be interesting.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Seems like lately, especially in the small cell debate, there are many who accuse people of simply trying to discount a study because they don’t agree with it. Maybe for someone who has done nothing in the realm of trying to measure the thing that was in the study, this might be a valid accusation. However, I find that EVERYONE does this in matters where the study disagrees with their personal experiences. AS THEY SHOULD! -Michael Bush





> I'd believe it if it was stated that way, but it's not. -Barry


What other recent studies on SC are being "discounted?"



> And that is exactly how I'd want it. The bees need to do the proving first! -Barry


The attempt in science is not to "prove" anything. The attempt is to reach understanding and be able to make predictions from that understanding. In the process, scientists attempt to disprove hypotheses and support (not "prove") hypotheses.



> I do see some potential pitfalls indicating that some significant variables were not controlled. Those thoughts are posted a few pages back in this thread. -Fusion Power


I'm guess these are those "variables" that you mentioned a few pages back:



> 1. Mites move from colony to colony presumably by phoretic transfer during foraging and also when bees drift between colonies. From the description, I am presuming that both small cell and large cell colonies were at the same location. Did your experiment include any effort to measure and/or prevent such drift?
> 
> 2. You clearly showed mites in the cells for both large cell and small cell colonies. Did you also take any steps to prove that these mites were able to reproduce normally in both cell sizes? Is there a possibility that proportionally fewer mites emerge from brood cells as adults for one cell size vs the other?
> 
> 3. The biggest and most unexplained effect of small cell was the larger population size. Do you have any speculation on reasons why the small cell colonies were larger? Could the larger colony size be significant in understanding the final mite population? -Fusion Power


First, the possibility of "drifting" may not have been controlled, but the assumption that mite populations will "level" due to drifting assumes that half of the bees out foraging will not return to their own hives, but instead return to other hives. I wonder if that's correct. Then, too, it assumes that *all* of the large cell bees (or small cell, depending on which way you wish to look at it) are carrying phoretic mites. Keep in mind that the SC hives didn't have "some" mites; the numbers were virtually identical between SC and LC hives.

The second "variable" isn't a "variable" in this study. Presuming that the line of reasoning goes something like, "SC hives have just as many mites as LC hives, but the mites don't reproduce as much in SC hives," then the number of bees drifting must really be 50% or more. With drifting like that, how would guard bees ever determine "robber" from "drifter?"

And the third "variable" is more or less an "effect" than a "cause," in my mind. Do you believe that if SC hives have limited populations (so they won't have more bees than LC hives), the number of mites will decline? Do you (any of you who have SC hives) limit the populations of your hives so the number of mites is held in check? I believe the final population size _was_ significant in determining the _Varroa_ populations -- the SC hives had significantly more bees and significantly more mites, but the number of mites per bee was not significantly different between SC and LC hives.



> I would like it if, with an open mind, some of the established small cell beekeepers would switch some hives in some yards to large cell, see what happens and report back. -ndvan


Sounds like a good idea.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

ndvan said:


> By suggesting that the SC study got this started, I was not suggesting that "this thread was set up to discount that study." I think that goes too far.


Which study do you think it was set up to discount?


ndvan said:


> Once again, I don't want to speak for others, but I think the actual attitude in the small cell beekeeper posts is more along these lines: "If what I am doing actually works for me, then why should I change my practices because one study indicates that small cell does not really work."


A couple of things. I've quoted Jennifer on this before but will repeat with a paraphrase. She has said that if you've found a practice in beekeeping that allows you to keep bees sucessfully, without any treatments, she'd be the last person to suggest that you change those practices. The second thing is that the study didn't indicate that small cell does not really work. It indicated that under the conditions of the study, small cell did not reduce varroa levels.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> And that is exactly how I'd want it. The bees need to do the proving first! -Barry
> 
> The attempt in science is not to "prove" anything. The attempt is to reach understanding and be able to make predictions from that understanding. In the process, scientists attempt to disprove hypotheses and support (not "prove") hypotheses.


Your still "stuck" on the science mindset. My remark was not an attempt to define scientific protocol. I'm suggesting you step out of that mindset and simply start keeping some bees on SC and observe. Why start out with a study? Why do an experiment on something you don't even know if it works? Start with bees and SC and no treatments for several years. If you get to the place where this works, then knock yourself out trying to answer the why questions.

Regards,
Barry


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Your still "stuck" on the science mindset. -Barry


Quite likely so. That's the way I think.



> My remark was not an attempt to define scientific protocol. -Barry


I interpreted your remarks to be pretty much that: you spelled out what you deemed the appropriate methodology for an "experiment" on "small cell."



> I'm suggesting you step out of that mindset and simply start keeping some bees on SC and observe. -Barry


That's been done. You've done it. Dennis has done it. Michael Bush has done it. Dee Lusby has done it. Numerous others have done it. In fact, you don't know that I haven't done it.

But it doesn't *mean* anything. All it means is that bees can live on smaller cells sizes than the commercially-produced comb. Interesting, but from a practical standpoint, so what? (This is where we leave the realm of basic or "theoretical" science and get into applied science. Your suggestion to "observe bees on SC" is "basic science." It provides data or observations that add to our basic understanding. However, to begin suggesting that "SC reduces _Varroa_ populations" moves into the realm of "applied science." Methodology changes. Now controls become vital.)



> Why start out with a study? Why do an experiment on something you don't even know if it works? -Barry


Honestly?

OK (not trying to offend anyone here), here's how science works, simply:

You don't know something. You wish to know something. So you design a way to understand that "something" well enough to make some predictions about it.

You must start out with an experiment. You did. Dennis did. Michael Bush did. Dee Lusby did. You decided to see whether or not your bees could/would live on smaller-than-commercial-sized cells. And they did and are. You've done that experiment. It worked (I presume) -- your bees are living on "small cell."

If you already know something works, you don't need to do an experiment. For example, I know that if I spray my bee colonies with concentrated Sevin, those colonies will die. I don't have to conduct the "experiment." I know that if I drop a concrete block, it will fall to the ground. I don't have to set up a "study."

And, I know that bees can survive on SC without treatments. And bees can survive on LC without treatments. And colonies on both SC and LC die out, from time to time.

So the question now is not "Why," but, "Does SC offer an effective form of control against _Varroa_ mites?"



> Start with bees and SC and no treatments for several years. If you get to the place where this works, . . . -Barry


Really, some of the SC proponents on BeeSource have claimed repeatedly that converting to SC is very simple. All beekeepers have to do is put packages onto plastic comb (not foundation) that measures 4.9mm cell diameter, and the resulting bees will be "SC." If it takes more than that -- and your comment suggests that it does -- the proponents of SC need to make that clear and not make the process sound so simple.

[quote . . . then knock yourself out trying to answer the why questions. -Barry [/quote]

Sorry, still on the "any real difference in mite control" question here.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

> I'm suggesting you step out of that mindset and simply start keeping some bees on SC and observe. Why start out with a study? Why do an experiment on something you don't even know if it works? Start with bees and SC and no treatments for several years. If you get to the place where this works, then knock yourself out trying to answer the why questions.


If your intent is to find out for yourself if it works and you have the means to make measurements and comparisons, then not doing that would be an incredible waste of time and effort. The way you suggest it, it might work and then you'll be scratching your head as to what caused the mites to go away as you Really Don't Know since you made no measurements and comparisons.

Trying out LavaMiteBlue the way you suggest could lead to the same thing. You stop treating, the mites go away, then what, promote LavaMiteBlue?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

MichaelW said:


> If your intent is to find out for yourself if it works and you have the means to make measurements and comparisons, then not doing that would be an incredible waste of time and effort.


I think you can decide what is a waste of time in your own beekeeping, but to set that standard for someone else, well . . .
I've done all the work I'm going to do in "testing" SC. What I've done works for me.



> The way you suggest it, it might work and then you'll be scratching your head as to what caused the mites to go away as you Really Don't Know since you made no measurements and comparisons.


Does it really come across that I'm spending time scratching my head over these things? I'm not. I'm not even "promoting" it. I'll speak up from time to time about my experiences and take on a matter, but I'm not interested in trying to prove anything to you or anyone else about SC. I know a few who are though. [wink]



> Trying out LavaMiteBlue the way you suggest could lead to the same thing. You stop treating, the mites go away, then what, promote LavaMiteBlue?


Nope, just keep on doing what's working. I've been able to rule out LMB as a likely option. Having to run extension cords to all the hives is a mess.

- Barry


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> In fact, you don't know that I haven't done it.


So is there something special about keeping everyone wondering if you have or haven't? What's the point of this statement?



> But it doesn't *mean* anything.


No, it doesn't answer questions you have as to why the bees are thriving without treatments. It certainly means you have bees, honey, and no treatments.



> However, to begin suggesting that "SC reduces _Varroa_ populations" moves into the realm of "applied science." Methodology changes. Now controls become vital.)


Show me where that I have said that. I'm sure I've said that my bees have been able to deal with varroa, and that it got to a point where there was no longer any adverse effects of varroa on the colony. I've never bothered to count varroa, ever. It's not something I find worthwhile to do.





> Honestly?
> 
> OK (not trying to offend anyone here), here's how science works, simply:


See, there you go again, right into science. This isn't about science. It's about putting all that aside for a time and doing as I asked. After you've had a few years with the bees on SC or natural cell, whatever, then start applying your science mind, but only if you still have bees to apply it to.



> Really, some of the SC proponents on BeeSource have claimed repeatedly that converting to SC is very simple. All beekeepers have to do is put packages onto plastic comb (not foundation) that measures 4.9mm cell diameter, and the resulting bees will be "SC." If it takes more than that -- and your comment suggests that it does -- the proponents of SC need to make that clear and not make the process sound so simple.


Yea, we've all taken a little bit different road in this area. I was one of the first that started out the hard way. Total conversion to SC from LC hives. I did all the regressions and steps down in comb building with shakedowns. It was a mess. Lost most of my bees. But eventually turned the corner when I had enough SC comb. I have no experience with the method most are doing now with instant conversion using plastic.

- Barry


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Kieck said:


> Really, some of the SC proponents on BeeSource have claimed repeatedly that converting to SC is very simple. All beekeepers have to do is put packages onto plastic comb (not foundation) that measures 4.9mm cell diameter, and the resulting bees will be "SC." If it takes more than that -- and your comment suggests that it does -- the proponents of SC need to make that clear and not make the process sound so simple.


I have seen many 'reputable' sc proponents advise new beekeepers to put their packages on sc foundation and simply not treat. In the post-UGA/Berry study days we're now being told that there cannot be any conventional cell colonies nearby or they will contlaminate the sc hives with varroa. In addition we're hearing that it'll take years for the bees to modify their behavior and become effective in managing varroa.

I had an open mind. I started regressing my existing bees and placed a number of packages on sc foundation. This is frequently not a painless or simple process. I would ask sc proponents to avoid advising new beekeepers to take this path. I truly believe that you are doing a disservice to those who don't have the experience to recognize a colony on the verge of collapse or know the difference between well drawn comb and clumps of drone cells.

Please allow these newcomers time to gain enough confidence before you send them down a challenging path.


----------



## Everett (Feb 25, 2007)

I don't know what the proponents of SC are saying, but I can tell readers from my own experience that I too am 100% using SC. So far, I have not had to treat for mite levels above the economic threshold. Still, I do not recommend switching to SC and then forget about mites. When asked, I recommend regular monitoring, and then treating should mite population rise above the economic threshold. In my practice, SC is only one of my IPM tools. I use screened bottom boards, splits and sporadically cut drone comb. I plan to experiment with powdered sugar dusting this coming season. I am prepared to take stronger steps if necessary albeit I don’t yet have a firm plan on what those stronger steps would entail.

Also from my experience, starting packages on SC foundation (I used traditional wax), was seamless.

BUT… regressing from LC was not seamless for me. I had to combine hives in the process to save colonies that went from strong to weak.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Here I go again! :>)

I think there's some confusion on three different areas of focus, the if, the how, the why. Empirical evidence is the most common means of determining the if's.

Repetition often affirms/denies and refines the hows.

Defining the why takes the process to a whole new level. And it's at this point that culture, religion and science get involved. And the explanations provided met the needs of the time or they were replaced with something else more suitable.

It's interesting to notice, that most belief systems claim title to the 'truth' and claim an unshakable foundation. Yet, they have their own seeds of self-destruction built in, as they are based upon human limitations and fallibility. And if some flexibility isn't built in for change, they become defensible, dogmatic, eventually irrelevant and are replaced by something better.

Humanity has, for eons, thrived with the empirical ifs and hows. It seems we're pretty good at it regardless of the different whys.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> So is there something special about keeping everyone wondering if you have or haven't? What's the point of this statement? -Barry


I made the statement because you keep stating that "(I) should try SC and see if it works." You don't know, really, whether I (or anyone else reading this) has or has not tried it. 

What's special about keeping everyone in the dark? Nothing. The problem I see is that if such things are revealed, it changes your responses. If you're convinced that I have no hives on SC, you keep telling me that it's vastly different than keeping bees on LC. If you're convinced that I have hives on SC, you assume that I've had the same experiences with SC that you have and have seen the differences compared to hives on LC that you believe you've seen.



> No, it doesn't answer questions you have as to why the bees are thriving without treatments. It certainly means you have bees, honey, and no treatments. -Barry


Right. And what if I have bees that are thriving without treatments that are not on SC? What does that say?

For reference, see:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214294

Just for clarification, I have not filled out the poll on that thread.



> Show me where that I have said that. I'm sure I've said that my bees have been able to deal with varroa, and that it got to a point where there was no longer any adverse effects of varroa on the colony. I've never bothered to count varroa, ever. It's not something I find worthwhile to do. -Barry


Please note that I never wrote that you "said" that; I wrote that your statements "suggested" that. And they do. Reread your statements above. You wrote that you keep bees on SC, your bees are at a point where you no longer see adverse effects from _Varroa_, and you see no need to even bother counting _Varroa_. While that may not be "reducing the mite population" _per se_, it suggests that your bees have overcome problems from _Varroa_ due to your management strategy (i. e. "small cell").



> After you've had a few years with the bees on SC or natural cell, whatever, then start applying your science mind, but only if you still have bees to apply it to. -Barry


Two things leap into my mind when I read this:

First, a repeat of my statement earlier: "You don't know that I haven't done this." That's why I stated it before.

Secondly, if you believe that those who wish to test things scientifically stay out of "science" until they have some practical experience, then maybe those who are not testing things scientifically should refrain from commenting on (i. e. "discounting") scientific studies.



> See, there you go again, right into science. This isn't about science. -Barry


Ah, but it is. The title of this thread is "Discounting *scientific* studies" [emphasis mine]. So it is about science.



> I have seen many 'reputable' sc proponents advise new beekeepers to put their packages on sc foundation and simply not treat. In the post-UGA/Berry study days we're now being told that there cannot be any conventional cell colonies nearby or they will contlaminate the sc hives with varroa. In addition we're hearing that it'll take years for the bees to modify their behavior and become effective in managing varroa. -beemandan


Well said. If SC is really that simple and easy, then these other factors shouldn't figure into it ("time to stabilize," "leveling of mite populations through drifting," etc.). If it's not so simple, then it should not be proclaimed as being so simple to newcomers.



> I think there's some confusion on three different areas of focus, the if, the how, the why. Empirical evidence is the most common means of determining the if's. -BWrangler


Nicely stated!

I believe, on the issue of SC from a scientific standpoint, we're still at the "if" stage. "If a hive is switched to comb with smaller cell sizes, will that hive be less likely to succumb to _Varroa_ than a hive on comb of larger cell sizes?"

Then we get to, "How much difference, really, does cell size make?"


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I think it's a mistake to ascribe a particular motivation to anyone, especially over postings on the internet. It's hard enough to ascertain motivation in a spouse, who I look in the eye and see everyday. Anyone ever had this problem? :>) And even with my own motivation, particularly when I'm emotionally involved.

I've even had to apologize for things I've done with the best motivation. And I've been praised for things I've done with a bad motivation.

Ideas often cascade and are related. At least I hope mine do. But my spouse might have a more objective evaluation :>))))

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I for one, with little doubt, understood the intentions of this thread from the start....


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Stop...

We have a winner in the.. "LEGEND IN THIER OWN MIND CATAGORY"

Oh wait... is this spelled right??


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Keith Jarrett said:


> Stop...
> 
> We have a winner in the.. "LEGEND IN THIER OWN MIND CATAGORY"
> 
> Oh wait... is this spelled right??


You know Keith, I've really cogitated on your post and am embarrassed to admit it, but I don't have a clue. A hint for a slow beek????


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> I made the statement because you keep stating that "(I) should try SC and see if it works." You don't know, really, whether I (or anyone else reading this) has or has not tried it.


No I don't and apparently you plan to keep us all wondering.



> What's special about keeping everyone in the dark? Nothing. The problem I see is that if such things are revealed, it changes your responses. If you're convinced that I have no hives on SC, you keep telling me that it's vastly different than keeping bees on LC. If you're convinced that I have hives on SC, you assume that I've had the same experiences with SC that you have and have seen the differences compared to hives on LC that you believe you've seen.


You have quite a mind game going here. When you're ready to talk about your experience with SC, I'll be back.



> Right. And what if I have bees that are thriving without treatments that are not on SC? What does that say?


The same thing, but we already know now that you are only talking "what if's" here. You're none committal.



> Secondly, if you believe that those who wish to test things scientifically stay out of "science" until they have some practical experience, then maybe those who are not testing things scientifically should refrain from commenting on (i. e. "discounting") scientific studies.


For the most part, I do stay out of "science", but I still have a brain and can reason and have common sense. That is why I suggested you start out your journey down the SC road by actually keeping some SC hives and observe. I know, I know, we have no idea if you may in fact already have some SC hives!

I've not discounted any study, except the New Zealand one from a couple years ago.



> Ah, but it is. The title of this thread is "Discounting *scientific* studies" [emphasis mine]. So it is about science.


Ah, I wasn't referring to the title of this thread, I was referring to my challenge to you.

- Barry


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

I place value on what the scientist say because often they can tell my why something is happening, if they are able to reproduce a result. 

I place value on what beekeepers find because I know they are more likely to be keeping bees in closer proximity to my methodolgy with similar goals and results.

I think these posts where everyone gets into the debate aspect are great, I pull bits and pieces from everywhere, rate them on the level of credibility the poster has with me, look for any related science and then make decisions based on that and my own bias and experiance. 

I try not to discount science or opinion if it comes from a credible source.

With small cell foundation now available for use that is applicable to a commericial operation I plan to do a few (10) hives with it next year. I have limited success on large cell w/o treatement but not consisitenly. Dave Robbins has posted an article about the HSC so I'll have to see if I can sort out if that is choice I should be considering over standard small cell foundation, maybe both are worth a try.


----------



## fat/beeman (Aug 23, 2002)

*small cell*

I am just sitting here shakeing my head in dis couragement. I have been on small cell for while.
I am not saying jump on small it works=but I sell nuc's most of the yr. and if it wasn't no bees to sell.
my web site is www.geocities.com/fatbeeman. look at what I have done judge for your self.
maybe I have spent money on foundation rollers that don't work.
we all got a opion on small cell. I am not a PHD or got any masters papers just comon sence
Don


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

*Open Minds?*

I really do have an open mind about this topic -- I started out with two small cell hives, which I combined into one last fall. Basically had no varroa in the surviving hive at the end of the first season. Something seemed to work in my favor, whether that was the genetics of the bees (non-treated, hygenic small cell bees from a small cell beekeeper) or the SC foundation. 

I'm hoping to expand to five hives next year, and I'm trying to decide what kind of foundation I want to use. I'm currently planning on stocking the new hives with swarms. I'm a little worried about regression problems and leaning towards LC foundation. That leaning is due to the Berry study and the reports that there seem to be plenty of LC beekeepers who do not have to treat. 

One thing that frustrates me is that at least some of the hardcore SC folks equate "keep an open mind" with "do it they way I do it, I know it works." 

In this and other posts, I've suggested that some of the hard core SC people with a few hives to spare convert a few hives to LC. Some folks always say, "That's a good idea." But none of the SC folks ever say, "Okay, I'll do it." 

Also, before the Berry study, it was common to hear, "They oughta do a study." Now, its, "Scientific studies don't matter." 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that I can sit in a chair in Tulsa and boss other people around about what they should do with their beehives. I also know that nearly everybody posting on this thread has much more experience than I have. But if the hardcore SC crowd really has an open mind (and don't just want to be proven right), it would seem that they would want to see what happens if they try the switch to LC on a few hives.

IMO, if people get their egos out of the way, they ought to be hoping that SC does not work. If the SC itself does not work and they do not actually have a varroa issue, that would seem to mean: (1) goodbye regression issues; (2) not treating leads to mite resistant bees in a fairly short time; and (3) the SC community has gone a long way towards breeding better bees for the rest of the beekeeping community. 

Don't mean this to be a personal attack on anybody, just what I think is a fair comment about this thread.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

ndvan said:


> In this and other posts, I've suggested that some of the hard core SC people with a few hives to spare convert a few hives to LC. Some folks always say, "That's a good idea." But none of the SC folks ever say, "Okay, I'll do it."


That's probably due to the fact that it's already been done.

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/un-regressed-bees/

- Barry


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Hi Don,

I've been thinking about a possible study as we discussed. I think you could configure a pretty easy one that simply asks how much small cell foundation has an effect in your apiary. It dosen't get to all the questions you where interested in, but it would be easier to do. The same method could be implemented by any successful small cell or natural cell beekeeper so I'll post it here.

Simply choose 20 hives in the same yard that seem fairly equal in strength, for half of them continue with your normal management practice. 

For the second half, get standard 5.4mm plastic foundation, unwaxed. (you'll have to confirm the measurement on plastic as some companies vary). Roll this foundation with wax. (this removes any chance of contaminated wax and keeps you 'organic' if you are under USDA organic program). A beekeeper here says wax rolled plastic foundation works as good as wax foundation. He did 300 frames last year and all where drawn perfectly.

In the second group, simply begin to introduce this foundation into the broodnest with your normal management practice when pulling splits etc. Treat both groups exactly the same, using the same stock. Replace the same amount of comb in each hive in each group. Use queen excluder if you want to mix foundation size above the broodnest. Observe for a couple of years, eventually replacing all the foundation in each group.

Through the experiment, measure hive strength and varroa infestation before manipulations through to the end of the study. There is a few ways you can choose to do those.

To make it better, level out the mite loads and colony strength in the 20 hives before you begin manipulations. This can be done by moving frames of capped brood. Moving capped brood from more infested hives to less infested hives, and moving either brood or bees from stronger hives to weaker hives.

This would be a good study. You could probably work down from here in varying degrees if its economically prohibitive and get decent information, but I think that would be the minimum if funding is sought.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Ah, I wasn't referring to the title of this thread, I was referring to my challenge to you. -Barry


First, it's not a "challenge," and secondly, it's meaningless.

I think Joel put it very nicely: 



> I place value on what the scientist say because often they can tell my why something is happening, if they are able to reproduce a result. -Joel


That's just it: we're looking for "repeatability" here. From what I've read and seen with the "small cell" hypothesis, getting repeatable results has been difficult at best. Some report almost instant, easy success in terms of _Varroa_ control. Some report difficulty getting SC bees "stabilized" before offering any _Varroa_ control, including losing many hives along the way. Some report "no mites on their bees" once they switch to SC. Some report "plenty of mites but the bees seem able to get by" once on SC. Some report just as many mites and just as many losses to mites on SC as on LC. And some report "not bothering to even check for mites once they switch to SC." So, if SC is really such a silver bullet, why don't all those who report their results see consistent results?

And that still speaks nothing about those who report similar findings without treatments on LC. So what gives?

To my ("scientific") way of thinking, the results should be consistent before I would attempt to make any predictions or recommendations from them.

Along the "unscientific" line of thinking, I have hives that are on LC and, other than mechanical and cultural forms of control against _Varroa_, have had no treatments in the last five years. The rate of survival seems acceptable to me (about 10 percent lost on average in the winters, a few explanable losses to factors other than mites) and mite loads are low (less than 1 percent infestation of drone brood). So, can or should I claim that drone brood trapping solely is an effective method of control for _Varroa_ based on my observations?



> For the most part, I do stay out of "science", but I still have a brain and can reason and have common sense. -Barry


I expect you do. I presumed as much. So, let's look at your hives (we'll deal with "me" in a minute). You have a number of hives, from what you've written. You use small cell comb in those hives, according to what you've written. Your bees are "thriving," in your opinion, and you're not using any other form of control against _Varroa_. I'll confess that I don't recall whether your reduction of cell sizes occured rapidly (inserting drawn SC comb) or over two to three years (with "stabilization"). And, according to what you've written in this thread, you have no idea if _Varroa_ are present in your hives or in what numbers they might be present.

So, what can predict from your observations? That SC hives work better than LC? I don't see that from your observations. That switching to SC eliminated worrying about _Varroa_ for you? Possibly, but since you didn't keep any hives on LC, you don't know what might have happened if you had some LC hives. That bees can live on comb of smaller-than-commercially-sized cells? Yep, looks like bees can survive on SC comb.

Now, to me:



> You have quite a mind game going here. When you're ready to talk about your experience with SC, I'll be back. -Barry


I have hives on comb with commercial size cells (LC); I have hives on comb with small cell (SC). Some of the SC hives have been on SC for more than a year now. One yard of mine holds nothing but LC hives. One holds nothing but SC hives. And one holds a mix of the two.

Before I say anything more, let me pause to point out that nothing that I've observed is "publishable" at this point, and I make no recommendations based on my observations so far.

What I've seen fits very closely with what Berry found in her study. The SC hives, either in the separate yard or in the mixed yard, have no more or no fewer mites statistically than the LC hives, either in the mixed yard or in the separate yard. I've seen no evidence of "leveling" in mite populations among hives within yards. The "treatments" -- other than cell size -- are similar for both LC and SC hives. They get worked at the same frequency, split at the same frequency, requeened at the same rate, manipulated (especially drone brood trapping, mostly for checking mite infestations, etc.) in the same ways. Yet the cell size seems to confer no difference in mite populations at this point.

Mite loads are low in all my hives at this point, and I believe that's worth noting. Possibly under greater pressure from the mites, some real difference will appear between the SC and LC hives. I'd like to see how they respond to greater pressure from mites, but, odd as it seems to say it, increasing mite populations deliberately seems relatively difficult.

From my observations, I would say that determining how much pressure your bees face from _Varroa_ is paramount. Why try to control mite populations if mite populations pose little or no threat to your bees?



> That is why I suggested you start out your journey down the SC road by actually keeping some SC hives and observe. -Barry


See? I have. To me, adult bees from SC hives appear smaller than adult bees from LC hives (this came up in another thread), but that could easily be my own bias. I could be assuming that any smaller-than-average bee I see comes from an SC hive and any larger-than-average bee I see comes from an LC hive. I don't know. I plan to make some measurements of adult bees this summer to see if what I believe I've seen is actually what I've seen.



> I try not to discount science or opinion if it comes from a credible source. -Joel


That's fair, I think. Really, I would prefer to see the title of this thread written as "Criticizing scientific studies," rather than "Discounting scientific studies." Criticism, if valid, can improve future studies and should also identify merits of the studies in question. Discounting is simply disbelieving as untrustworthy or exaggerated. If a study is untrustworthy or exaggerated, it should be discounted. Otherwise, it should be subjected to criticism, not discount.



> This would be a good study. You could probably work down from here in varying degrees if its economically prohibitive and get decent information, but I think that would be the minimum if funding is sought. -MichaelW


The methodology you propose sounds very similar to the methodology used by Berry, to me.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

> That's fair, I think. Really, I would prefer to see the title of this thread written as "Criticizing scientific studies," rather than "Discounting scientific studies." Criticism, if valid, can improve future studies and should also identify merits of the studies in question. Discounting is simply disbelieving as untrustworthy or exaggerated. If a study is untrustworthy or exaggerated, it should be discounted. Otherwise, it should be subjected to criticism, not discount.


Well said.


> The methodology you propose sounds very similar to the methodology used by Berry, to me.


Well, I think Berry's study was good. So no surprise I would propose nearly the same thing.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

"Mite loads are low in all my hives at this point,"

This is an important point, mite levels in all Kiecks hives are at a low point. How many posts have we seen recently indicating this on small cell and large cell? I think about Gypsy moths that throughout my teenage years went through peak and level years on a pretty standard schedule. We used tanglefoot on the trunks, BT on the leaves, traps and smashed every single one we came accross because they were decimating the trees. I clearly recall not having picnics outside due to the constant fall of defecation. Suddenly in 1996 there was a huge die off and they have not had a peak year since. I could draw the conclusion that the tanglefoot, BT and other methods knocked the population down. In fact science told us the overpopulation succumed to a virus. I've been interested in small cell for years, I've needed something commerically applicable AND the time to figure out how to do regression on a large but economical scale. The "how does my family eat if I'm wrong" factor plays a huge role for me, especially since 4 of 5 kids are headiing home to join the business in the next year. The Norway Study combined with anecdoatal information here is encouraging. I'd like to see more research and be able to understand the mechanism causing the results as well as impact on other aspects, positive or negative, on hive mangement. Science is how that will happen. I'll still experiment but a couple of solid studies to compare results and identify reasons would be a great help to many.

"Criticism, if valid, can improve future studies and should also identify merits of the studies in question."

I think many times Criticism is viewed as an attack, and sometimes it seems painful and folks end up feeling like they are defending their position. No one here should have to feel like they have to defend themselves. Having said that information, even anecdoatal information that stands up to criticism gets closer to a factual interpretation. Very important if your family food on the table and roof over the head is dependant on making the right decisions.

The fact I believe small cell people are having success does not remove my need to understand why and how it will impact my operation on a large scale. So I keep asking questions.


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

*Comment and a thought*

Joel says: "The fact I believe small cell people are having success does not remove my need to understand why and how it will impact my operation on a large scale. So I keep asking questions."

Comment: To borrow a Michael Bushism, "Exactly." However, I'm not sure my operation is big enough to be an "operation" or have a "large scale" anything.

In that spirit, I had a random thought. What if small cell worked (hypothetically) because the bees are smaller, can't handle the varoa and actually die easier (either while developing or as adults), thus helping to eliminate them from the hive? Maybe that effect would only have its full impact if their were quite a few mites present. In other words, maybe there is some reason why, as Kieck suggests, the effect of SC only becomes obvious if there are a lot of mites around. 

Just a thought.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

MichaelW said:


> Hi Don,
> 
> I've been thinking about a possible study as we discussed. I think you could configure a pretty easy one that simply asks how much small cell foundation has an effect in your apiary.
> Simply choose 20 hives in the same yard that seem fairly equal in strength, for half of them continue with your normal management practice.


The discussion keeps coming back around to the question of queen genetics possibly being the key to success rather than the SC comb. 

Why don't we just cut to the chase and answer that question first. Along MichaelW's line of thinking... how about this scenario. Set up a study in a yard with 20 hives which are all thriving on SC without treatments. Remove the queens from half of the colonies and replace them with queens from other colonies which are struggling or crashing from mites. No shaking of bees, manipulating frames, combinations.... just leave them all as is and replace the queens. 

Then as time passes and the new generation of bees from the replacement queens populate the colonies it will become crystal clear if the "Queens" are the key, or "SC". The colonies will either ( 1 ) continue to thrive as they did with the old queens or ( 2 ) they will begin to be overrun by mites.

Any thoughts?


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Mike, thats a pretty good idea. Although, you too have to think about the genetics of the mites. Its pretty clear that some strains of mites are more virulent then others. If the hives with new queens in your scenario didn't get mite problems, there still might be Varroa genetics in play.

I'm pretty convinced that when beekeepers treat with either Apistan or Checkmite or other similar chems. on a yearly basis (sometimes twice a year) that they are breeding super mites with the strongest surviving to rear the next up and coming generation of mites. Another factor in Small Cell beekeepers success is probably simply getting off the chemical treadmill. Finding out if it would all fall apart with changing queens, or changing mites, or changing cell size, or a combination of these or some other factors would be good information.


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

*Science Facts*

If you use The Scientific Method and do not let human emotions intervene you can make proper deductions.
You need field trials in large numbers and not small lots if you really want exact statistical numbers that can be used in any conclusions. 
You have to eliminate experimental and human error and that is opening up areas of incorrect data collecting.
The average person does not even know the difference between one tablespoon and one teaspoon let alone the metric system that is often used for exact international mathmatical data in experiments.
You also need to understand some simple terms like Standard Deviation from the norm.
Scientific facts are like good tools just do not abuse them!
Best regards,
Ernie


----------

