Another witch burning

[Wilco]

Do you need a study for the hammer on foot thing too, or are you happy with that?

Would you be able to agree with the following proposition:

'The more evidence arrives showing that propolis is a beneficial antisceptic that reduces disease incidence, the more we should consider taking care to avoid breeding away from propolis making'

Almost but not quite- that's still conflating two different things- proving propolis to have benefits still does not prove the converse. You'd need (repeatable) studies showing that colony survival decreases with reduced propolis production in order to argue against breeding away from propolis use. In such studies, correlation alone would be a weak basis as correlation doesn't imply causation.

Yes, I know I am a pedant.

 

[Finman]

Diabetes and propolis has nothing to do each other. I use now 3 diabetes medicin.
I use denatured alcohol, that I can wash propolis off from myös fingers.

Idiotic debating in the name of science.

 

[Erichalfbee]

'The more evidence arrives showing that propolis is a beneficial antisceptic that reduces disease incidence, the more we should consider taking care to avoid breeding away from propolis making'

That I presume is intentional, nevertheless delightful

 

[Beesnaturally]

That I presume is intentional, nevertheless delightful

No, but phones appear to have a sense of humour occasionally

I expect it was me. I've been learning a program called Sketchup lately and always have to think twice when searching for help whether it's a k or a c - but both work. That has probably bled from the issue of whether to spell 'skeptic' with a c or a k (UK vs American). Anticipate more scetchy spelling along those lines

 

[Beesnaturally]

Almost but not quite- that's still conflating two different things- proving propolis to have benefits still does not prove the converse. You'd need (repeatable) studies showing that colony survival decreases with reduced propolis production in order to argue against breeding away from propolis use. In such studies, correlation alone would be a weak basis as correlation doesn't imply causation.

Yes, I know I am a pedant.

From James' paper, oddly, I think, not labelled as a conclusion. My highlighting:

" The subject of behavioural immunity in insects is receiving increasing attention since it was eventually appreciated that self-medication is not restricted to vertebrates, with their high cognitive abilities, but widespread among animals [26]. Here we show for the first time that, along with the already known mechanisms of behavioural immunity [27], honeybees can display a further level of defence based on the use of a substance to treat the environment where an ectoparasite reproduces. In this way a reduction of the survival and reproduction of the parasitic mite V. destructor inside the bee brood cells is achieved, with notable benefits for the bees developing in those cells. Furthermore, propolis can support mite-infested bees also after reaching the adult stage, probably by reducing possible secondary infections triggered by the mite.

Over time, the deposition behaviour of propolis into the hive has been negatively selected by beekeepers because this sticky material disturbs the handling of frames [4]. Our study, which is the first to deal with all the effects of propolis on Varroa, highlights the importance of this substance for colony health, suggesting that the development of strategies to stimulate resin collection and propolis storage into the hive could have a beneficial effect on bee health and should therefore be promoted.

We hope that this work will stimulate further studies aiming at assessing the potential of propolis for the control of V. destructor: a strategic issue to preserve the sustainability of beekeeping and in turn food production "

See if you agree: wrapped up in those emboldend passages is the joint understanding that:

A) beekeepers habitually select against propolis

B) this needs rethinking in light of the results of the study

It is my position that as studies like this one are aimed at people who are very familiar with the effect of selection - both natural and artificial, no further explanation is needed. The keyword 'selected' brings up the general idea: this is about breeding. The recommendation to develop strategies - given that context - doesn't require any elaboration. It is obvious to them, to their readers, and to me, that what is intended is to develop a strategy that _doesn't_ select against propolising behaviour.

And that can only mean: 'We understand that selecting against it will, in light of these findings _necessarily entails_ reducing health'.

Does that complete the rationale for you?

To look at it another way: implicit in the text is the further idea: all the knowledge the authors can bring to bear suggest it is unwise to remove a natural defence mechanism, and that breeding against it will (obviously - to them) tend to do that. (And so... it would be a good idea to stop doing so).

They go on, in the customary way, to recommend further investigation. This is both sensible, useful, and bog-standard. Perhaps, given the levels of scepticism and yes, plain ignorance of genetic husbandry in the beekeeping world, somebody will find the means to make an actual study that demonstrates what is obvious to them. Maybe we should write to the author and suggest it, giving our (different) reasons for thinking it would be a good plan.

 

[Wilco]

From James' paper, oddly, I think, not labelled as a conclusion. My highlighting:

" The subject of behavioural immunity in insects is receiving increasing attention since it was eventually appreciated that self-medication is not restricted to vertebrates, with their high cognitive abilities, but widespread among animals [26]. Here we show for the first time that, along with the already known mechanisms of behavioural immunity [27], honeybees can display a further level of defence based on the use of a substance to treat the environment where an ectoparasite reproduces. In this way a reduction of the survival and reproduction of the parasitic mite V. destructor inside the bee brood cells is achieved, with notable benefits for the bees developing in those cells. Furthermore, propolis can support mite-infested bees also after reaching the adult stage, probably by reducing possible secondary infections triggered by the mite.

Over time, the deposition behaviour of propolis into the hive has been negatively selected by beekeepers because this sticky material disturbs the handling of frames [4]. Our study, which is the first to deal with all the effects of propolis on Varroa, highlights the importance of this substance for colony health, suggesting that the development of strategies to stimulate resin collection and propolis storage into the hive could have a beneficial effect on bee health and should therefore be promoted.

We hope that this work will stimulate further studies aiming at assessing the potential of propolis for the control of V. destructor: a strategic issue to preserve the sustainability of beekeeping and in turn food production "

See if you agree: wrapped up in those emboldend passages is the joint understanding that:

A) beekeepers habitually select against propolis

B) this needs rethinking in light of the results of the study

It is my position that as studies like this one are aimed at people who are very familiar with the effect of selection - both natural and artificial, no further explanation is needed. The keyword 'selected' brings up the general idea: this is about breeding. The recommendation to develop strategies - given that context - doesn't require any elaboration. It is obvious to them, to their readers, and to me, that what is intended is to develop a strategy that _doesn't_ select against propolising behaviour.

And that can only mean: stop selecting against it.

Does that complete the rationale for you?

To look at it another way: implicit in the text is the further idea: all the knowledge the authors can bring to bear suggest it is unwise to remove a natural defence mechanism, and that breeding against it will (obviously - to them) tend to do that. (And so... it would be a good idea to stop doing so).

They go on, in the customary way, to recommend further investigation. This is both sensible, useful, and bog-standard. Perhaps, given the levels of scepticism and yes, plain ignorance of genetic husbandry in the beekeeping world, somebody will find the means to make an actual study that demonstrates what is obvious to them. Maybe we should write to the author and suggest it, giving our (different) reasons for thinking it would be a good plan.

From the bit you put in bold:

'Suggesting'

' Could'

That's hypothesising not concluding and is essentially what I've been saying.

So your B point still needs 'may' at the start. Likewise, whilst (as I've said) I neither breed for or against it, this paper is not conclusive proof that we shouldn't breed against propolis (or that we should breed for it). It just demonstrates that in the experimental setup used, propolis seemed to be beneficial.

I'm not sure our positions on propolis itself are that different.

 

[Boston Bees]

Excellent.

Time for a new discussion topic then?

 

[Beesnaturally]

From the bit you put in bold:

'Suggesting'

' Could'

That's hypothesising not concluding and is essentially what I've been saying.

So your B point still needs 'may' at the start. Likewise, whilst (as I've said) I neither breed for or against it, this paper is not conclusive proof that we shouldn't breed against propolis (or that we should breed for it). It just demonstrates that in the experimental setup used, propolis seemed to be beneficial.

I'm not sure our positions on propolis itself are that different.

Science writers almost always use such cautionary languge.

From the bit you put in bold:

'Suggesting'

' Could'

That's hypothesising not concluding and is essentially what I've been saying.

So your B point still needs 'may' at the start. Likewise, whilst (as I've said) I neither breed for or against it, this paper is not conclusive proof that we shouldn't breed against propolis (or that we should breed for it). It just demonstrates that in the experimental setup used, propolis seemed to be beneficial.

I'm not sure our positions on propolis itself are that different.

Well, we could have a discussion on scientific caution and expression. The whole idea of the study was to evaluate the proposition that propolis had health given properties. They found it did. Its just one study, but since it demonstrates something which is flipping obvious from any number of angles, I think we can be reasonably confident that it does.

Given that the idea that breeding does transmit heritable characters, and (although no evidence is offered) I don't think there are many (!) who would ask for proof of that, it simply stands to reason - good, solid, competent, logical reason - that A will follow B: that breeding against a health-giving behaviour will ceteris paribus tend to reduce health.

All this goes to show how much grief can be caused by people who don't understand the science, but do know how to simply keep asking for proof and repeating 'show me the science'. What is really needed is for them to study the science until they understand the mechanics for themselves. Of course not everybody is up to that, or up for that. So the mantra goes on: 'Rubbish, show me the science'.

Anyway, we've been round the houses, and that can't be a bad thing. I for one will be making a mental note of the sticky ones from now on, and trying to discount the rough hive/smooth hive variable. I'd like to know which ladies will be more likely to make propolising offspring.

I will however review my policy of buying shiny boxes, and thing about ordering some local sawn cedar (ish) boards. My thinking is if they were all on sawn board my comparisons would be a lot easier, and I'd have healthier bees to boot.

 

[Finman]

SAVE MONEY 100 €

 

[Murox]

Science writers almost always use such cautionary languge.


Well, we could have a discussion on scientific caution and expression. The whole idea of the study was to evaluate the proposition that propolis had health given properties. They found it did. Its just one study, but since it demonstrates something which is flipping obvious from any number of angles, I think we can be reasonably confident that it does.

Given that the idea that breeding does transmit heritable characters, and (although no evidence is offered) I don't think there are many (!) who would ask for proof of that, it simply stands to reason - good, solid, competent, logical reason - that A will follow B: that breeding against a health-giving behaviour will ceteris paribus tend to reduce health.

All this goes to show how much grief can be caused by people who don't understand the science, but do know how to simply keep asking for proof and repeating 'show me the science'. What is really needed is for them to study the science until they understand the mechanics for themselves. Of course not everybody is up to that, or up for that. So the mantra goes on: 'Rubbish, show me the science'.

Anyway, we've been round the houses, and that can't be a bad thing. I for one will be making a mental note of the sticky ones from now on, and trying to discount the rough hive/smooth hive variable. I'd like to know which ladies will be more likely to make propolising offspring.

I will however review my policy of buying shiny boxes, and thing about ordering some local sawn cedar (ish) boards. My thinking is if they were all on sawn board my comparisons would be a lot easier, and I'd have healthier bees to boot.

Make sure you also evaluate poly boxes of different brands as well, and try sawn pine, sawn larch and sawn cedar

 

[Mint Bee]

Science writers almost always use such cautionary languge.

that's because when scientists don't have the data they need to promote a new theory they hypothesize that there maybe a correlation. Anything else would be professional suicide and make them look like muppets - no more publications, no more funding no more employment

one set of data is interesting, but it proves bugger all for scientist, and should be treated as such.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Make sure you also evaluate poly boxes of different brands as well, and try sawn pine, sawn larch and sawn cedar

I will only be interested in evaluating my bees in the two kinds I use. Its really just trying to include propolis in my present evaluation criteria, without being thrown by a couple of different surface types. And seeing too if surface types seem to make any difference to how well they do.

 

[Beesnaturally]

that's because when scientists don't have the data they need to promote a new theory they hypothesize that there maybe a correlation. Anything else would be professional suicide and make them look like muppets - no more publications, no more funding no more employment

one set of data is interesting, but it proves bugger all for scientist, and should be treated as such.

I agree, but it offers a strong indication that makes very good sense. Don't forget Marla Spivak's experiments have the same clear result.

For myself I ask why evolution equipped bees to add an expensive layer of antiseptic goo. There can only be one answer: its adaptive. How is adaptive? Well, the fact of its antiseptic nature offers a strong clue there.

I think your 'promote' is a bit misleading. All a study does is say: we did this, this is what happened. We think it indicates such and such, and (sometimes) here are some statistical evaluations to demonstrate the level of probability that it just happened by change. I don't think anybody is promoting anything with a published study.

Also, in a strict sense, scientists never 'prove' anything. Somewhere between the stability of the data over time, the size of the sample, and the fit to (variably) established theory, confidence grows. Knowing just when a level of confidence has arrived that enables us to say 'good as fact' is subjective. But... a well designed experiment can often give a terrific boost. (Look up Eddington's observation for a first class example.)

You can always say x has never been proven, and so to do so can be meaningless. What you have to do a make a much more complicated response to the question: how confident can we be?

Here: its early days. But there is a strong element of fabulous fit. It offers an neat answer to the why propolis at all, and an answer to the why the experimental results questions. And there are no competing explanations for those things that I've seen. There is a complex picture, a puzzle that is bee life itself: and this offers links between existing aspects of theory and knowledge that strengthen the whole. That too is generally taken to be strong sign that you are on the right track.

What experiment would you suggest to try a locate strong support, or falsification, of what hypothesis in this case?

 

[Beesnaturally]

Excellent.

Time for a new discussion topic then?

That's a great idea. How about you go off and have one, while those of us interested in this one carry on.

 

[Sayle]

That's really interesting ... one more nail in the coffin of those who insist that bees that propolise are bad ... and also those who seem to think that propolis is something that has to be scrubbed or burned off their hives on an annual basis.

It drives me absolutely batty, these people. "My bees do this every year. Sigh, better scrape it off and give it a scorch." Maybe they're doing it for a reason? You know they're the same people who turn up their noses with a "bees don't read books" whenever it's suggested that maybe ventilating your roof in winter is a bad idea. I met a matchsticker the other day at a small meet and I practically felt the blood drain from my face when I realised they weren't joking. Just couldn't get through to them.

 

[Beesnaturally]

It drives me absolutely batty, these people. "My bees do this every year. Sigh, better scrape it off and give it a scorch." Maybe they're doing it for a reason? You know they're the same people who turn up their noses with a "bees don't read books" whenever it's suggested that maybe ventilating your roof in winter is a bad idea. I met a matchsticker the other day at a small meet and I practically felt the blood drain from my face when I realised they weren't joking. Just couldn't get through to them.

But do you have evidence that top ventilation is a bad thing?

 

[Boston Bees]

Yeah, but peer review! Yeah, but sealion! Yeah, but natural selection! Yeah, but science! Yeah, but it's obvious!

Return to start

Repeat

 

[Beesnaturally]

Yeah, but peer review! Yeah, but sealion! Yeah, but natural selection! Yeah, but science! Yeah, but it's obvious!

Return to start

Repeat

Fantastic critique Boston Bees. Are you feeling a little bit left out? Will no-one come and play with you?

 

[Boston Bees]

I found the original cartoon that spawned the verb ( Sealioning - Wikipedia )

 

[Mint Bee]

And as it was in the beginning
So shall it be in the end
That ******** is ********
It just goes by different names