From: Allen
Date: 3/13/98
Time: 6:21:48 AM
Remote Name: 198.161.229.181
This is long and winding, but please bear with me, since this is really what this whole thing is all about. ---
<<<I think this means you are using 18.5 percent of the label recommendation. I don't think this will do much to reduce Nosema levels if you have any>>>
There, you've said it -- and I think it needed saying. I guess this is exactly where we are headed with this forum, to prove this one way or the other.
It's pretty clear that beekeepers don't want to believe the cientists 100% when it comes to coughing up big money to combat an invisible disease. We do want to do *something* because we have been scared a little bit, but as a group, we aren't willing to pony up to paying the full freight.
I guess there are enough believers -- in what the developers and the manufacturer would consider a token and ineffective treatment -- that I wonder if there is something to the idea. I have a lot of respect for anyone who can put together a 500 hive, a 1,000 hive or a 2,000 hive bee outfit and keep it together. I've done it myself over 25 years and know that there are much easier ways to make money and earn a living. Therefore I am not inclined to just discount the ideas of my fellows without further consideration -- and proof.
After some debate on the merits of drenching and patty (or paddy) treatment, (Eric being somewhat pro, and me being the doubter and all the extension people pushing full treatment), Eric and I decided to give the whole idea a fair test in our own yards. Ergo: Homemade science.
Personally, my position is this: if we can't make the these tests somewhat rigorous, I want no part of it; it would be a waste of time. Do Eric and I have all the resources we need? With just the two of us, I doubt it: we have the bees, we have the microscopes, we have the nosema, we have been to school; but do we have the insight, the methods and support we need to do the thing right?
That's why we took the project to the 'net. The idea is that here, on the 'net, we will get people -- both practical and theoretical -- looking over our shoulders and we're bound to do a better job. If we don't, someone will jab our balloon -- I hope. If we can involve a group of 'ordinary'(if there is such a thing) beekeepers to join in, so much the better. If extension people and scientists will advise and critique us, then we are less likely to make mistakes.
(Like it or not, I think that this may be the future of bee research: beekeepers in the field providing the bee and labour resources, doing operations and making observations under supervision and advice of trained scientists both on the site and over the 'net. Let's discuss this under this same thread, if you like).
<<<you can't expect any observable benefit or even any measurable benefit in reducing Nosema levels ...said it would be a waste of money since it is not likely that any would get into the bees midgut in a manner to cause any impact on the vegetative form of Nosema. He explained that the research was designed to study the best way to get Fumigillin into the bee's midgut and patties are not the way to do it.>>>
Frankly, that is what I would believe -- if I had facts to support the belief. As it stands, that's 'sorta' my hypothesis. If I can take the liberty of putting words into Eric's mouth, his opinion is is 'sorta' that it 'oughta' work, since Fumidil is too expensive to use full strength :) Actually, now that I think about it, maybe those were his exact words.
<<<It would appear that many beekeepers who use Fumigillin patties have wasted a lot of money buying Fumidil-B! ...As we used to say in high school" this is a dirty rotten shame! >>>
And we're going to prove it -- or not.
Allen
[_private/disc4_aftr.htm]