Evidence-based beekeeping

[Poly Hive]

Rubbish. everyone has the same tools at their command namely Google et all.

It comes down to time. I could spend all day here citing this and that, but why should I for the benefit of the not willing shall I put it politely.

Like most I have other things to do, I remember seeing the evidence cited, I remember having a quick look and thinking another myth out the water as is small cell stuff.

PH

 

[jackbee]

Rubbish. everyone has the same tools at their command namely Google et all.

It comes down to time. I could spend all day here citing this and that, but why should I for the benefit of the not willing shall I put it politely.

Like most I have other things to do, I remember seeing the evidence cited, I remember having a quick look and thinking another myth out the water as is small cell stuff.

PH

Rubbish! As you so eloquently put it!

Anyone can quote 'research', needs to be backed up if you're going to use it in a discussion. If you haven't the time don't enter the discussion

It seems one side of the discussion needs proof and the other doesn't??

btw I have no leanings either way on this yet but I do lean on the side of a level playing field

 

[Chris Luck]

Spot on Jackbee, but this place is always like that.

Chris

 

[Poly Hive]

never been a level field and I say again the theories on sugar have been rubbished. The links are on the forum.

A lot of the so called natural beekeeping has no evidence.

PH

 

[Into the lions den]

Tend to agree with PH here. Was a moderator on Bee-L for a period some time back and if every time someone squealed 'quote the research' the whole thing would have been gummed up with endless repetitions of quotes (we had a limit on quoting), most of which had been mentioned before anyway and the poster could not be bothered looking through the archives.

A particular problem was the proponents of certain 'cure alls' which were meant to be the solution to various problems, but in particular varroa.

Fringe person comes onto the list and advances their version of how things should be done, and that if you follow the method to the letter, all will be cured (although even the originator of small cell herself admitted over 90% losses twice with it, and cannot seem to get more than 60% of her hives filled up.).

Naysayer, usually very experienced beek who has seen the formula (if not the actual version) of wonder ideas many times before, comes on and says that will not work/does not work/has been shown not to work. Proponent demands proof from naysayer. (Way back on Bee-L we had a character called Andy Nachbaur, who was a real curmudgeon at times, sadly dead now, but he could spot a lemon (or a snake oil seller) before anyone else.)

Sorry, but thats the wrong way round. the person or entity advancing the method is the one upon whom the burden of proof falls. It is just not good enough to ask someone you have been telling about your ways, and is sceptical or even hostile to the idea, to prove it does not work.

Asking someone to quote studies (which has already been done endless times if you bothered to search the archives of any of the major bee lists) in each fresh thread on the subject is sterile and tiresome. Its all out there in the media for you to find, probably in a few minutes, yet you ask others to do the work for you. Its just a lazy answer that happens to play well with the already converted, and then you can go off and self congratulate that this or that person or entity could not prove you were wrong so you must be right. Wrong, they just cant be bothered recycling the same stuff again and again.

Studies are out there by good researchers that debunk small cell, except in the presence of Africanised genes. Yes, even in Sweden, which is the small cellers favourite response. Try looking up Osterlund and Elgon in your search string.

The powdered sugar method may be the result of poor understanding of language and in particular the term 'control'. That you can control (as in measure) varroa with powdered sugar is not in doubt. That you can control (as in keep the population down and render the colony healthy ) varroa with powdered sugar is VERY dubious and based on some assumptions that ignore other negatives.

The main negative being the utter disruption to the colony every few days for an ill defined period. Any heavily invasive system of management invloves a risk of queen loss and this is not different. you will lose a small percentage each time, subject to variables like weather and temperament. Not only is the sugar method non viable, its also way too invasive, and even if it worked would not be a runner except in micro sized outfits.

I am ALWAYS wary of a method being advanced which is overly complex, overly invasive, and relies almost entirely on anecdotal evidence. The real bells start to ring when there are weasel words included and, when it fails for you, the get out clause 'you must not have done it properly' is wheeled out.

 

[Brosville]

"the theories on sugar have been rubbished" from my recollection, a lot of people have taken that line, based on research which didn't use the same methods as most successful users of sugar dusting, and that a great many people claim that it "works for them". PS, I don't use it myself, as I consider it too invasive.

There are a great many myths put about in beekeeping, and accepted as gospel, particularly anti (more) natural beekeeping.

I think a very reasonable analogy would be keeping chickens - I remember a time when representatives of the min of ag and fish and the NFU were telling me in all seriousness that my attempts to open a free-range egg farm were doomed to failure, that it was deeply "unscientific", that we would become a sink for disease, that the chooks were happier and safer crammed into tiny battery cages, fed on a diet including a cocktail of broad-spectrum antibiotics, synthetic colourants and DPM (dried poultry manure), and never allowed any exercise or to ever see daylight....... Thirty years later, free range egg farms are thriving, and disproving the carping nonsense touted by the "conventional" brigade........

There are times I despair at the uses of what is purported to be "science" by all sorts of factions, usually wrongly, to give their arguments credence to an unwary public - sadly a great deal of it is at the level of the TV cosmetic/hair products ads - "Proven to be effective" (*tests carried out by the Trichological Institute of Peckham, 87 out of 137)

 

[jackbee]

I can see where your coming from itld but still think that if you are using research as a point of argument the burden of proof is on the poster not the reader.

 

[alanf]

For what it's worth, the sugar question was asked to an RBI earlier this year. The answer, in as much detail as I can recall, was that dusting with sugar does remove some mites currently on the bees. But that is a small percentage and to have any effect on the mite population it needs applying every few days over at least a brood cycle which will disturb the bees as well as attracting ants and robbing. Don't rely on it as your only method of control but if you want to use it in addition at weekly inspections it's your choice.

That appears to be the official NBU line, that it's not totally useless but to have an appreciable effect the treatment has more costs than benefits.

 

[Brosville]

JB - Absolutely, if you're going to claim "scientific proof" then you need to cite that research - what really gets my goat is that many people claim something is "unscientific" just because no research has been funded and done in that area, often because it's either something "new" or a revival of something old - sadly most research these days is funded by multinationals, and slanted in such a way as to present their products as having "scientific credibility", when if you look carefully at the "science" it has often proved absolutely nothing.

Big Ag will claim their ways are "scientific" - (based on simplistic and incomplete science) - at the end of the day it is ruining the environment, organic growing is every bit as credible, it may not have had gazillions spent on research, but it works, and works well!

 

[BeeJayBee]

The book made me curious about the science behind Evidenced Based Beekeeping and I would welcome your thoughts on what I found out.

It's a bit ironic that the thread is now discussing links, and whether they should be provided or not, when the original link has been broken by site software.

 

[Chris Luck]

Asking someone to quote studies (which has already been done endless times if you bothered to search the archives of any of the major bee lists) in each fresh thread on the subject is sterile and tiresome. Its all out there in the media for you to find, probably in a few minutes, yet you ask others to do the work for you. Its just a lazy answer that happens to play well with the already converted, and then you can go off and self congratulate that this or that person or entity could not prove you were wrong so you must be right. Wrong, they just cant be bothered recycling the same stuff again and again.

I disagree completely with that. If someone is going to state with certainty that something has been rubbished or proven not to work then supporting evidence should be provided to allow proper scrutiny of the sources and methods applied.

Chris

 

[tonybloke]

well, after the proposer has first shown their evidence, I'd agree with that, Chris

 

[Finman]

.
This discussionis going again over horizont. No problem, no adress. Just ventilating brains.

 

[Black Comb]

Here's the thread
http://www.beekeepingforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1409&highlight=icing+sugar

Here is the research

http://www.ibra.org.uk/articles/20090217_5

Took me approx. 2 mins.

 

[Into the lions den]

I disagree completely with that. If someone is going to state with certainty that something has been rubbished or proven not to work then supporting evidence should be provided to allow proper scrutiny of the sources and methods applied.

Chris

OK.....when the same studies have been quoted several times, and the same faces jump in on threads with their customary assertions, someone challenges them................and without the burden of doing the same they demand proper scientific studies to disprove things from their challenger. Its a superficially neat trick, firstly to ignore that the studies have been promulgated ad nauseum, (and ignored ad nauseum as they fail to dent the zealots belief), and then demand them to be trotted out again and again on every thread. Its a total PITA that the promulgator KNOWS will eventually lead to a response like that of PH, offering a strange and warped way for them to claim victory.

Now, IF IF IF the thread is on a fresh or relatively fresh subject matter rather than the nth version of the same stuff, then I do agree, the promulgator should offer their proof, and the rebutter should offer theirs.

The scientific issues involved in attempting to prove a negative do offer the entities making claims an advantage, as you only need a single case to prove a thing can happen, but no number of negatives can prove it never happens.

Fact is almost anything CAN happen, and some colonies somewhere will be better after regime X has been put in place. Why? Well it may or may not be down to the regime, but quite often its down to either nifty or naieve (sp?) use of the post hoc fallacy. The reverse is also true, there is very little that will never happen.

Its all down to likelihoods and percentages, whether this or that is a good thing to do.

Still comes down to the same thing. If a person is going to advance theory X as the way forward its up to *them* to justify it, and see if it survives the scrutiny of science and the heat of criticism. It is not the initial responsibility of all the rest of us to provide proof to knock down a new way if the originator is not going to accept a similar burden, and as they started it they show first. Simple.

Some bee stuff, like small cell, had the conclusion as the starting off point and the evidence then selected to support it. The heat of criticism and questioning had the originator jumping from list to list, sometimes generating 100 posts a day alone, till landing in a place seeking such a visionary, where sharp questions would not be asked.

Things often go unchallenged. Like Brosvilles tale about the opinions about his free range chickens. Why? Well its totally irrelevant to beekeeping, but it would have been quite in order to ask him to prove it. I suspect it to have been someone voicing an opinion about the risks of going free range and free of most inputs, and it is at best an anecdotal tale and probably heavily coloured. Why do I think this? Well free range has been around for a long time, and although my memory goes back only 50 years or so on the subject I KNOW that he quoted 30 years ago as when he was being treated dismissively. How do I know free range chickens and egg production was widespread 20 year earlier with no major issues? Well I was raised in such an environment. My parents kept several hundred free range laying hens as a sideline and as a kid I used to do the feeding watering and egg collecting. The local egg grading station sent vans round the producers every few days to collect the free range eggs. It was common. Nothing visionary about it. I loved working with the chickens and always went to ground very upset when it was time for the older ones to make their exit, as some of them were like pets. Always have had a soft heart, and my father used to get annoyed ( I suspect mock annoyed) as after the executioners had gone it was surprising how many of my favourites used to emerged unscathed from various sheds into which they had had the misfortune to find themselves locked that very night.............

 

[Into the lions den]

There are a great many myths put about in beekeeping, and accepted as gospel, particularly anti (more) natural beekeeping.

Apart from the last phrase, which was an unneccessary jibe, your statement is one that I can agree wholeheartedly with. BUT........its all ways that are plagued by it, not just the natural lot.

 

[Poly Hive]

Thanks Murray.

Off to see Hamish and Joan on the way north.

PH

 

[DanBee]

A lot of the so called natural beekeeping has no evidence.

I call it 'faith-based beekeeping'...

 

[Chris Luck]

Lot of words but it still doesn't alter the fact that if someone is going to state with certainty that something has been rubbished or proven not to work then supporting evidence should be provided to allow proper scrutiny of the sources and methods applied.

Equally, other people are reading this thread that may not have been around or aware that there had been a different thread somewhere in the past and of course it should apply across the board if "speaking with certainty".

Chris

 

[DanBee]

A particular problem was the proponents of certain 'cure alls' which were meant to be the solution to various problems, but in particular varroa ...

Fringe person comes onto the list and advances their version of how things should be done, and that if you follow the method to the letter, all will be cured ...

Sorry, but thats the wrong way round. the person or entity advancing the method is the one upon whom the burden of proof falls. It is just not good enough to ask someone you have been telling about your ways, and is sceptical or even hostile to the idea, to prove it does not work.

Asking someone to quote studies (which has already been done endless times if you bothered to search the archives of any of the major bee lists) in each fresh thread on the subject is sterile and tiresome. Its all out there in the media for you to find, probably in a few minutes, yet you ask others to do the work for you. Its just a lazy answer that happens to play well with the already converted, and then you can go off and self congratulate that this or that person or entity could not prove you were wrong so you must be right. Wrong, they just cant be bothered recycling the same stuff again and again.

Well said The onus should be to prove that any change is better than the status quo. In the absence of this, the status quo wins unless you just want to play or tinker. Results from playing or tinkering are rarely of a scale or method that constitutes proof.

Doing something merely because it is different does not make it inherently better. We run the risk of constantly re-inventing the wheel every time somebody asks "Why not do it like this?", particularly if the response when challenged is "Well prove that it doesn't work". You have to ask yourself why, since beekeepers are such tinkerers, do some ideas, approaches, and equipment stand the test of time, and others do not. From this it could be argued that different is probably worse, unless it can be demonstrated to be as good or better. Again, burden of proof lies with those proposing the change.

One of the problems we face today is that any nut-job can get published, or at least get an audience. Back in the days of the printed word, you had to be a damn sight more credible in order to reach a wide audience. Yes, I'm sure there were instances where genuine innovation was stifled due to convention, or the old boys club, but on the whole the credibility question would have been a good check on the speculative or the unproven.

Back in the early 1980's we had a local beekeeper who, after one season, had all the answers. He was going to go commercial and keep his colonies in 45gal steel drums... cheap & readily available, good size, easy to migrate by rolling on and off a trailer (yes, really). I don't recall how he planned to extract - whether with a can opener, or by spinning the drum on its axis and then attaching a tap - but he disappeared just as quickly, taking his "innovation" with him. Today he would have a website and a small but dedicated global following...