Roughing Up Boxes to Encourage Propolis Envelope

[The15thMember]

This isn't true either.  If you spoke with several commercial beekeepers that have had thousands of hives in their career under all kinds of conditions you could draw a more accurate conclusion.  At least one has already posted.  If you do your test and make a conclusion you have a 50/50 chance of getting it right. Another avenue you could pursue is to consult an entomologist or books written by entomologists and get a better chance of getting it right.  Many hobbyist conduct these "tests" that are not tests at all because they don't have the background and knowledge to conduct any test.
Most smart people get smarter from other peoples efforts.

You mean like these? 
[attachment=0][/attachment]

Ace, I think you are one of those people who believes that science can only be done by people with a degree.  The truth is science is only making observations and drawing useful conclusions from them, something that many people do every day.  It's true, with only a handful of hives over the course of a single season, my conclusions aren't very meaningful, and they certainly aren't meaningful for anyone except me and my bees, as there are too many variables to accurately discern anything wide-ranging.  But say for the next 10 years I have some of my boxes roughed up and some of them smooth, and over that time I observe noticeable differences between the various colonies, then I could draw a meaningful conclusion, even though it would still only apply to me and my bees and not to anyone else. 

If someone would take the time to do a comprehensive research study on this, then yes, that would be the most helpful, to me and to everyone.  But it hasn't been done yet, and until it is, I'm going to work with what I've got, which is the knowledge (gained from reading comprehensive research studies) that colonies with more propolis generally have less trouble with certain diseases than colonies with less propolis.     

[Acebird]

You mean like these? 

Yes and no.
It would have to be books that talked about propolise and how much of a effect rough wood would induce the bees to secret more propolise above and beyond what they would do if the wood was smooth.  And then does it make a measurable difference.  I don't see that as an easy test.

The truth is science is only making observations and drawing useful conclusions from them,

No not even close.  Science is proving your conclusions are right based on what you observed.
I could conclude that my bees are sick because I observed them doing a shaky thing on the landing board.  You know this would be a wrong conclusion.  Don't you?  The thing is many beekeepers do observations and come up with totally wrong conclusions because they think what they observed proves what they believe they are seeing.
Go ahead and do your experiments for the fun of it.  I don't want to discourage experimentation.  But be very careful about unproven conclusions.

I'm going to work with what I've got, which is the knowledge (gained from reading comprehensive research studies) that colonies with more propolis generally have less trouble with certain diseases than colonies with less propolis.     

You should also read some books about genetics because it is a genetic trait.  It might send you off in another direction being that some races of bees have better survival traits.  And then of course are your bees mutts or purebred?

[The15thMember]

No not even close.  Science is proving your conclusions are right based on what you observed. 

Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but this sounds dangerously backwards to me, and I think a lot of bad science stems from this statement.  In many cases, false "facts" can be found to support a conclusion.  It's that old "Light Bulbs are Really Dark Suckers" story, which is here if you are unfamiliar with it: https://www.ise.ufl.edu/capehart/darksuck.html  Theories should be made to fit the facts, not facts to fit the theories.  Observations generate facts, which are compiled into a theory, which is either useful or not useful, based on whether it can make predictions about similar situations in the future.  (Some would use the words "right/wrong" or "correct/incorrect" instead of "useful/not useful", but I prefer the latter, since our understanding of the universe evolves over time, and only scientific laws are considered immutably true.)

I could conclude that my bees are sick because I observed them doing a shaky thing on the landing board.  You know this would be a wrong conclusion.  Don't you?  The thing is many beekeepers do observations and come up with totally wrong conclusions because they think what they observed proves what they believe they are seeing.

It could be wrong.  They could be shaking because they are waggle dancing, or they could be shaking because they were poisoned.  The trouble with this situation isn't the conclusion, it's the lack of sufficient observation.  You are going off of one fact "The bees are shaking", and drawing a conclusion from that alone.  This will, as you said, inevitably lead to a useless conclusion, as bees shake for many reasons, and next time they are shaking, they still may or may not be sick.

And then of course are your bees mutts or purebred?

They are just local mutts.  And I haven't the faintest idea where my group of usurpers came from, but I'd doubt they are purebred. 

[Lesgold]

Reagan, I encourage you to continue with this idea and see where it takes you. The beauty about being hobby beekeepers is that we don?t have to rely on our bees for income. We are just on a journey of fun and learning. If something comes out of your experimentation that is interesting or worthy of further investigation, that?s great. If the propolis experiment doesn?t provide an outcome that warrants deeper study, that?s also fine. All you have given up is a little bit of time. Please keep everyone posted on your findings.

[jimineycricket]

Regan,
        I have always believed in the Dark Sucker theory, but never been able to convince my wife even though the evidence was right before her eyes.  Thank you so much for posting this.  Now, seeing this in writing, "proven" by educated people, maybe she will finally believe that light bulbs suck up the darkness.   Now back to the thread.

[Ben Framed]

Reagan, I encourage you to continue with this idea and see where it takes you. The beauty about being hobby beekeepers is that we don?t have to rely on our bees for income. We are just on a journey of fun and learning. If something comes out of your experimentation that is interesting or worthy of further investigation, that?s great. If the propolis experiment doesn?t provide an outcome that warrants deeper study, that?s also fine. All you have given up is a little bit of time. Please keep everyone posted on your findings.

Totally agreed Les. Keep up the good work Reagan! 👍🏻

Phillip

[The15thMember]

Regan,
        I have always believed in the Dark Sucker theory, but never been able to convince my wife even though the evidence was right before her eyes.  Thank you so much for posting this.  Now, seeing this in writing, "proven" by educated people, maybe she will finally believe that light bulbs suck up the darkness.   Now back to the thread.

You are quite welcome, Jimmy.  Hopefully now your wife will "see the light" on this subject, as it were.    It's like I always say, you if you find it on the internet, you know it's true.   

Reagan, I encourage you to continue with this idea and see where it takes you. The beauty about being hobby beekeepers is that we don?t have to rely on our bees for income. We are just on a journey of fun and learning. If something comes out of your experimentation that is interesting or worthy of further investigation, that?s great. If the propolis experiment doesn?t provide an outcome that warrants deeper study, that?s also fine. All you have given up is a little bit of time. Please keep everyone posted on your findings.

Totally agreed Les. Keep up the good work Reagan! 👍🏻

Phillip

Don't worry, I'll keep you updated.  If I'm being totally honest, I was going to give it a try regardless of what anybody said.    I was just curious if anyone else had tried it so I could learn from their experiences and compare notes.     

[Ben Framed]

Don't worry, I'll keep you updated.  If I'm being totally honest, I was going to give it a try regardless of what anybody said.  I was just curious if anyone else had tried it so I could learn from their experiences and compare notes. 

Thats the spirit! 

[Bill Murray]

Quote

    Don't worry, I'll keep you updated.  If I'm being totally honest, I was going to give it a try regardless of what anybody said.  I was just curious if anyone else had tried it so I could learn from their experiences and compare notes. 


Thats the spirit! 

I second this

[guitarstitch]

No not even close.  Science is proving your conclusions are right based on what you observed. 

Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but this sounds dangerously backwards to me, and I think a lot of bad science stems from this statement.  In many cases, false "facts" can be found to support a conclusion. 

I'm inclined to agree with 15th based on the phrasing of Ace's post.  Proving conclusions are right based on observations sounds like a long winded way to say "confirmation bias".  All due respect to individual members, of course.

True science may find an experiment that supports a hypothesis, but the results aren't accepted as a valid conclusion until all other potential explanations have been eliminated.

[Oldbeavo]

I have been following this thread, unsure of a conclusion, you would have to have 1000 hives smooth and 1000 hives rough to maybe find a difference, and the genetic difference of the hives would probably muddle the results.
Anyway where does this put the plastic and polystyrene hives in this topic, no propylis envelope and unhealthy bees??????

[Acebird]

Anyway where does this put the plastic and polystyrene hives in this topic, no propylis envelope and unhealthy bees??????

I have never seen the inside of a plastic/polystyrene used hive but I did assume the bees propolized them.  Is my assumption wrong?

[beesnweeds]

  If so, what did you use to rough up the boxes?

One way I have heard that beekeepers rough up the inside of the boxes quick is with an angle grinder and course wire wheel.  Safety glasses and heavy gloves a must.

[TheHoneyPump]

Anyway where does this put the plastic and polystyrene hives in this topic, no propylis envelope and unhealthy bees??????

I have never seen the inside of a plastic/polystyrene used hive but I did assume the bees propolized them.  Is my assumption wrong?

I have a few of the poly type hives as experimentals.  Yes, I observed that the bees fill all the micro-gaps and grains in the foam with propolis as well as a very very thin coat over the already smooth surfaces.

[Jim134]

     I can't remember the name that did do a steady on this.. This was for his thesis for anthropology  PhD... If I remember right it took place in  University of Minnesota.. He actually used pieces of plastic Queen  Excluder.. Cut to the proper size of the Box.. And then he just  Use thumbtacks to hold them in place.. On the interior walls. None of this power tool stuff. LOL
    I did go to a bee meeting with this man talked at... It was in Leicester Massachusetts.. About 10 to 12  years ago..





                BEE HAPPY  Jim134. 

[Oldbeavo]

The insides of a poly super are discolored a light brown color, very thin as you can see "grain" of the poly, i assume it is propylis.