SuperDFM – HoneyBee

[Allen Dick]

Every year the British Medical Journal publishes an issue of joke science. But years later, those papers are cited as real.

Read More:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... ce/383988/

[Allen Dick]

I extrapolate that one might culture these bacteria and add to pollen supplements to assist this growth… particularly in early spring when pollen is just starting and there are many days of no flying and brood is being raised.

I'm guessing that these things are in the air. They seem to just show up. I do recall reading something about adults passing such things down to new bees, though.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but extrapolation is a particularly dangerous form of speculation since it seems so reasonable. All forms of speculation are popular on Beesource. That is one reason that Beesource exists. Facts are not enough for some people. We tried to damp it down on BEE-L, though, and I tend to discourage it here, except with strong disclaimers to protect the gullible.

Extrapolation often passes for truth and wisdom, but is simply what it is: extrapolation., and that is another word for SWAG.

I rely on scientists for this info and info is scarce.

There are good reasons it is scarce. Maybe there is nothing there.

However, nature abhors a vacuum, so people make things up and others lap it up.

"I don't know", or "We can't know" is never good enough, so we have all sorts of charlatans, panaceas, and ad men peddling us worthless "information", and we feel instantly better.

Personally, I feel a lot better hearing "I don't know" than "Maybe (wishfully) this is could be the answer".

As for the plagiarism, how can that affect the truth of the story? If it was true on Deanno's site, would it not still be true on the thief's site?

[Allen Dick]

Although I am not impressed by the abstracts of the other refs, I was intrigued and tried to read this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21831787

Unfortunately, I did not easily find the full text and we all know that the abstracts hide all sorts of sins.

Any idea how to reach the actual study?.

[cam bishop]

hope this works:

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-prev ... ze=largest

[cam bishop]

sorry, thought it was the whole paper, but only a summary. One would have to subscribe I guess to read the whole thing. However, this is close I believe.

http://www.ipublishing.co.in/ijesarticl ... ES3107.pdf

[Allen Dick]

Unfortunately not. I just get the first page, the same as when I looked a little while ago.

Just reading the abstract and a page or two tells us nothing much useful about the study. It is only when we get into the details -- if they actually give them and many do not -- that we have a clue as to whether they are just blowing smoke or have done their homework properly.

One reason I left the various bee lists and forums was that I got really tired of people citing studies to me, then my having to go to the bother of finding and reading the study if it was available (obviously they had not done so) and finding the study either was total BS or not relevant to the topic it was called up to illustrate. To me quoting studies that have not been read and understood to prove some tenuous point is totally unfair, but it is a widespread practice and people get away with it all the time.

Basically, if someone cites a study to me, I expect that they read it and understood it and can defend it when I take the time to read it and find it is full of holes.

Beesource was particularly bad that way and Dean was one of the worst for citing studies that he had not read or understood, or which actually did not apply, and occasionally even showed the opposite of what he was writing.

Please pardon me if I sound short on this. I know I sound cranky, and probably am, but when people cite a paper, I actually try to locate it and read it in full if it seems at all interesting, and too often find that the person citing it only read the title or the abstract and has no real idea what is actually in the paper and how the work was conducted and that it was a waste of my time.

[Allen Dick]

How are the two studies even closely related?

One seems to be about discovering bacteria and the other is about feeding bacteria to bees.

[TWall]

The thought of supplementing with enzymes, microbes and probiotics sounds great. The problem is delivering them in a many that is useful. Are they still active in the product and can they be biologically utilized? Keeping things like enzymes and microbes in a form that has a shelf-life yet still functional is difficult.

Tom

[Allen Dick]

Agreed. It is a big leap from proven principle to practical and consistent application.

Many, many things have been proven effective in the lab, but failed to be of any detectable value in the hive, often because they are hard to introduce, because they do not persist, or due to unexpected undesirable or harmful effects.

We can name a number of products that were introduced with great optimism and early claims of success that have had to go back to the drawing board or be withdrawn due to inefficacy or due to other problems.

Products like the one under discussion can endure in the marketplace without effective challenge because there is no real way to prove they do not work, and it seems intuitive, even to smart people, that they should.

Until I have seen the results (and details) of several independent tests showing efficacy, I shall continue to be highly skeptical.

[Ian]

How many beekeepers will be buying their feed supplement patties this spring with "now with probiotics!" Stamped on its packaging? And how many Beekeepers will actually know what probiotics is?
The way I look at it, if DFM has merit, studdy will scream it from the roof tops. If it does not work, it will linger with the suckers... Lol