From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Jan 14 10:28:43 2001 Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06249 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:28:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by listserv.albany.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01933 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:31:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101141531.KAA01933@listserv.albany.edu> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:31:38 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8d)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0001B" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Content-Length: 178334 Lines: 3782 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:25:45 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tim Sterrett Subject: Re: Bee Dances MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Al Lipscomb wrote: > It seems to me that there is a basic need for some type of communication > within a hive to direct foragers to the target. This is a tough one for a non-scientist like me. I've seen bees dance although the dance pattern is not as clear to me as the diagrams in books make the patterns look. I've lined bees by catching a honeybee, letting it tank up on honey, marking it with a dust of corn starch, and watching it take off. The return of the marked bee is a "wow!" moment, but the appearance of other foragers is a "WOW!" moment. No other bees appeared while the first bee was tanking up or returning to its colony. They appear soon after the first bee reappears. But yellowjackets appear at the picnic table in numbers. They don't dance for each other and a yellowjacket colony has many fewer foragers than a honeybee colony. I'm trying to keep an open mind and am hoping to read Adrian Wenner's articles. Tim -- Tim Sterrett sterrett@voicenet.com (southeastern) Pennsylvania, USA 40.0 N 75.5 W ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:42:23 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Foreigners MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit With his tongue firmly in his cheek, Chris said "In the US the honeybee is an unnatural introduction and thrives in a largely artificial environment and a lot of people earn their bread and honey thereby." Well...if it comes to unnatural introductions (that need to be exterminated?) we need to include dandelions, purple loosestrife, knapweed, Queen Anne's Lace, and Englishmen (but not those from Wales)! With honey at about $.52 a pound (£.33), not many are earning bread alone from this land of milk and honey! The exception of course, and here comes the commercial, is comb honey which is cheerfully selling for around $7-$9 a pound (£4.40-£5.60) a pound, and the market is many thousand of pounds short of demand! Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. www.rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:35:22 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: William Morong Subject: Re: "Inside the Animal Mind" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:54 AM 1/6/2000 -0700, Dr. Wenner wrote: > Why should beekeepers and bee researchers be concerned about flagrant >use of teleology (insisting on purpose for each behavior) and >anthropomorphism (imposing human traits on animal subjects) in animal >behavior studies? First of all, it prevents objectivity among those who >wish to study the animal scientifically. and > Surely beekeepers can recognize what such an attitude might lead to. >Among other potential concerns, the possibility exists that the public >might become too emotionally involved in how beekeepers treat their >"subjects." Already, I have read of animal right extremists who have >insisted that honey bees should not be kept in prisons (i.e., hives) and >that no one should be allowed to take their hard earned honey and wax from >them. Let us for a moment assume that Dr. Wenner possesses absolute truth about bees. Of what use is truth in preventing the excesses of animal rights extremists? When have extremists ever been willing to be informed by the truth, reason, logic, or anything but their own emotions? In isolation, extremists are but a small threat to animal keepers. Difficulties begin when extremists persuade persons ignorant of the legitimate pursuit of agricultural activities that their stand represents the moral high ground. Once a significant number of persons are thus persuaded, the problem becomes political. The political arena is notoriously inimical to truth, reason, and logic. If we must do battle, even armed with the truth, in the political arena, we're doomed. However, observation of human behavior can give us great hope. Firstly, moral causes seldom overcome the self-interest of the majority. If we can effectively communicate another truth, that being the dependency of much of the food supply upon honey bees, we shall have taken a large protective step. To sweeten the deal, instead of preaching only the healthfulness of honey, we might help those around us to appreciate its exquisite flavors. Three years ago I was part of the uninitiated public, but now am converted by knowledge of bees' importance to my enjoyment of food, and most especially of comb honey. In concord with the deepest urges of Winnie the Pooh, I am oblivious to anthropomorphism toward bees, and promote the arctomorphy (change to bear form) of humans. Secondly, a lesson from Ronald Reagan. Arguments about the efficacy or evil of his administration aside, his great appeal to the majority is undeniable. His avuncular demeanor gave most people confidence that everything was being handled. We should understand our need to be confident and affable ambassadors. Less than two years into beekeeping I'm already addressed as "Bee-Man" by neighbors of one out-apiary. Two nearby families, one opposed to the eating of meat, were recently parties to a rancorous debate at the town Planning Board about a small custom meat cutting operation on the same street. I must heed the warning. Hives must be well kept. It helps often to mention that I've come to feed the bees or give them medicine, and to explain the dread results of lack of such care. I carefully explain that bees well kept often produce far in excees of their own needs, inasmuch as they are suited for less than ideal conditions. Mentioning the effect of strong colonies on one family's 160 apple trees does no harm. A television was dug out of storage so I could know what my neighbors were seeing about bees on PBS. Being within earshot of these neighbors at the out-apiary, I always address my bees in the tenderest terms of endearment, though not at all convinced that the bees hear me. The neighbors, however daft they may think me, at least understand (correctly) that the bees are loved. Furthermore, the bees somehow detect and respond pleasantly to a tranquil attitude. I've surely missed important things that I should do, but these are examples of small but important ways in which we can invest daily to keep extremists isolated. I offer no opinion on Dr. Wenner's assertions about the nature of bees, but suggest that understanding and catering to the nature of beekeepers' neighbors is more crucial to preserving our freedom to keep bees. Bill Morong ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:16:33 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Apis mellifera mellifera MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mr Michel reports that the UK indigenous bee, Amm, is extinct. The last time I took a sample (some months ago) and recorded colour, cubital index, discoidal index, pilosity and tongue length all the bees in the sample had characteristics typical of Amm and of no other race. However all these bees were indubitably dead so maybe the race is extinct in the UK and Mr Michel is first with the news. Chris Slade ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:16:35 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: HYGIENIC BEES AND CHALKBROOD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for the reply Blane. I am sure that in hives with hygienic bees the number of chalkbrood spores will be much less than in the average hive. However this may mean that there are only millions of spores instead of billions. From my reading I understand that it does not take many spores to invade a larva successfully. It is a very attractive hypothesis that hygienic bees are the solution to all problems but I remain to be convinced that they are the complete answer to chalkbrood. My mind is still open. Perhaps now that the economic importance of chalkbrood is starting to be recognised somebody will do some proper research. Chris Slade ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:16:42 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Inside the animal mind MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit While appreciating Adrian's point that anthropomorphism can be unhelpful when scientist is talking to scientist in the same discipline I believe that it can be a valuable use of language to make or illustrate a point to a lay audience. Dr Robert Pickard is held in immense respect in the UK for his work on the brain of the honeybee and as a lecturer. I tried to attend one of his lectures in London recently but although I arrived early all seats were taken and I was shut out. Those who were luckier told me that it was the best lecture they had ever heard. Dr Pickard has used a technique of inserting probes into the brain of a living bee, presenting her with stimuli and recording reactions. An electric pulse then sent down the wires would mark the particular parts of the brain and from later dissection it could be determined which parts of the brain deal with vision, scent etc. Although very much smaller, under a million cells, the brain of the bee works on exactly the same principles as the human brain. Why then should she not at times of rest mull over her experiences of the day? An anthropomorphist might call it dreaming: a neuroscientist might say the bee was reinforcing neural pathways but few would understand him. Chris Slade ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:17:32 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Richard Yarnell Subject: Re: "The State Of Science" In-Reply-To: <200001072248.RAA18970@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I hear you when it comes to anecdotal reports. But there is much that distinguishes modern science and "scientific fact" which were on the table when we arrived. The main difference is "scientific method" and peer review. If we distinguish between hearsay and rigorous scientific reporting, a good deal of what is being discovered and published now should stand the test of time. On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Al Needham wrote: > Let's face it, our alleged knowledge of science is still > down at a pretty low plane. ... > Think of how many alleged scientific "facts" > have been utterly demolished within our lifetimes > since they were initially discovered. --------------- Richard Yarnell, SHAMBLES WORKSHOPS | No gimmick we try, no "scientific" Beavercreek, OR. Makers of fine | fix we attempt, will save our planet Wooden Canoes, The Stack(R) urban | until we reduce the population. Let's composter, fly tying benches | leave our kids a decent place to live. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 09:57:18 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Rex Boys Subject: The State of Science MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Al Neeedham is being pessimistic. Caveman thought he had reached the end of the line when he discovered = how to make fire. A few thousand years later somebody realised that with the aid of a wet = blanket, the smoke could be used for signalling. Science is progressive and smoke has gone out of fashion in favour of - = Guess What? Today we are wiser and everyone expects changes to occur over the next = 50 years. Some ideas will be demolished but the majority turn out = right. The only society that has not changed in this time is the bee. Are they = just stick-in-the-mud or did they achieve perfection from the start? Rex Boys P.S. At least I managed to bring bees into my posting! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:01:04 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: christopher.slade@ZBEE.COM Organization: ZbeeNet computer networking for beekeepers Subject: Bee Dances CHRS: IBMPC 2 CODEPAGE: 850 MSGID: 240:244/186 81e0e511 REPLY: 240:44/0 8ef7165b PID: FDAPX/w 1.13 UnReg(52) As interesting as bee dances is bee memory. I once watches a bee visit about 15 dandelion clocks (seed heads) in succession before I lost sight of her. Clearly she was relying on her memory of these plants as nectar sources perhaps two days earlier. I wonder how many foraging bees return to the hive empty bellied? Chris Slade --- * Origin: Beenet Point (240:244/186) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 08:48:54 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barbara Belyea Organization: University of Calgary Subject: Re: "The State Of Science" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If I have read the rules of this list correctly, it should be an "informed discussion of beekeeping issues," not uninformed comments on the state of science or other hopelessly general subjects. I would at least like to see a clear maintained connection between beekeeping and any subjects proposed. -- Barbara Belyea Dept of English, University of Calgary Calgary (Alberta) Canada T2N 1N4 vox: 403-220-4656/5470 fax: 403-289-1123 web: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~belyea/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 11:44:49 -0600 Reply-To: cmichel@semo.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Chris Michel Organization: Snap Shot Subject: Re: Apis mellifera mellifera MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Not first with the news Chris, Just noting Brother Adam's work. I have enjoyed Brother Adams work in the past. I am glad to hear that since his passing apparently you have replaced him. I have found his writings an inspiration. Brother Adam continues to be my inspiration despite his absence. I hope you will contribute to the family of knowledge as did he. Your singular apiscentrism is, at best interesting. Good luck, {you have rather large shoes to fill} Chris Michel ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:06:16 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Elizabeth Petofi Subject: Re: "The State Of Science" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barbara Belyea wrote: > If I have read the rules of this list correctly, it should be an > "informed discussion of beekeeping issues," not uninformed comments on > > the state of science or other hopelessly general subjects. I would at > least like to see a clear maintained connection between beekeeping and > > any subjects proposed. I, on the other hand, have derived enormous benefit and interest from the latest discussions of the bee mind, etc. and hope they continue. I am always interested in the specific bee issues, too, but they are well-covered in the archives, and I seek the expansion of my knowledge and understanding of bees not just of themselves, but as a touchstone to the universe. I love my bees, not just because of the honey, but because of the way they connect and ground me to my flowers and plants -- and the nice beekeepers out there! And where is Garth, anyway? I miss his neat stories about bee stings and pretty women! Elizabeth Petofi Orange, Virginia, USA ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 21:24:07 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Murray McGregor Subject: Re: Apis mellifera mellifera In-Reply-To: <200001081840.NAA17830@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 A. m. mellifera ( mellifica to some) is alive and well, and ALWAYS has been. It is the prevalent black bee of Northern Europe, found widespread from the Pyrenees well into Russia. Feral populations exist in many other countries too, amongst them being USA, and New Zealand. Some Pacific islands are reputed to have relict populations of the original British black bee present, in others it is the French or German version. What I am sure is being talked about is the British variant largely wiped out in the Isle of Wight disease epidemic early in the 20th century. The idea that it was totally extinct is nowadays questioned by a LOT of people. (With apologies to Bro. Adam adherants, who can be pretty quick with the flames.) Bees closely resembling the old bee are now found in many parts of the UK. One possible scenario is that the black bee did not die out before the relict population had a chance to mate with the virgins of the new strains brought in to replace the losses. Over the passing decades there has been a combination of convergent selection for beneficial traits, plus a crystallisation of the genetic material just from selection towards those bees best equipped to the British conditions. Thus the strain may have died out, but it probably passed on its genes just before it did, and today the better genes have gradually come back to the fore. Some of the poor characteristics like lack of acarine resistance have largely gone, naturally selected away from. So today the so called native 'mongrel' is approaching the old bee but with a genetic make up subtly altered to cope with the prevailing circumstances. In some areas it is so close as to match all the old text book descriptions. Murray -- Murray McGregor ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 06:03:23 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Al Subject: Re: "The State Of Science" In-Reply-To: <200001081830.NAA17544@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Barbara Belyea wrote: > If I have read the rules of this list correctly, it should be an > "informed discussion of beekeeping issues," not uninformed comments on > the state of science or other hopelessly general subjects. I would at > least like to see a clear maintained connection between beekeeping and > any subjects proposed. > -- The state of science is critical to many of the issues found on this list. It provides the context of every posting that deals with the subject of beekeeping from a scientific perspective. Today the beekeeper is very much at the mercy of those who claim the title of scientist. In many countries only the scientist is permitted the right to say how we may care for our bees. It would be tragic for us to allow them to become the "Wizards of the relm" without questioning their methods or limitations. Mistakes made due to poor science have resulted in too many deaths to allow us to relax our watch on this area. I would also like to remind all who are concerned about the rules of this list, and logic and science in general that there is a thing call "ad hominem" arguments or attacks. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 15:58:40 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Madeleine Pym Subject: Re: Apis mellifera mellifera & "The State of Science" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Firstly... Chris Michel wrote: "Not first with the news Chris, Just noting Brother Adam's work. I have enjoyed Brother Adams work in the past. I am glad to hear that since his passing apparently you have replaced him. I hope you will contribute to the family of knowledge as did he. Your singular apiscentrism is, at best interesting. " In defence of Chris Slade their is another body of opinion that Brother Adam's evidence was based on a relatively localised search, and that there are other sources dating from that time (post Isle of Wight disease), particularly in the North of England, that demonstrated that not all the local bee populations had been wiped out. Please don't ask me to provide references right now as there are too many bee books on my shelves and I am in the middle of essay deadlines for my final year of a Philosophy degree - this is as much time as I can spare. Perhaps someone with a little more time available can help out here. You could also try contacting someone at the Bee Improvement and Bee Breeding Association (BIBBA) http://www.bibba.com/ who are extensively involved in a breeding programme of native stocks of apis mellifera mellifera. Secondly... With regard to Barbara Belyea's comments: "If I have read the rules of this list correctly, it should be an "informed discussion of beekeeping issues," not uninformed comments on the state of science or other hopelessly general subjects." Speaking as a student of philosophy as well as a beekeeper I welcome anyone who is prepared to question accepted scientific orthodoxies, and to analyse 'statements of fact' concerning issues like: the 'social' behaviour of bees; the mechanism of inheritable traits like disease-resistance; the evolution of pathogens, treatment of disease vs selection for resistance, etc. Challenging our most basic assumptions, however it may be expressed, has value. Remember we are only ever - if Kuhn was right - thinking within the current paradigm. Someone has to point out the anomalies otherwise we would still be flat-earthers (apologies to any flat-earthers out there, but that's the problem of thinking within a paradigm for you - I can no longer comprehend the concept of a flat earth). Personally, I welcome these discussions and look forward to thinking through the ideas offered even though I have not had time to contribute to this list for some months. Here is my own small offering to the recent discussion of, what I see as, the 'truth' status of science. Right now our biology is predominantly governed by Neo-Darwinian theory. Being in a Darwinian paradigm, may make it hard to comprehend Lamarckian, Creationist, and other positions but it is still just a paradigm. That means, necessarily, that what evolutionary biologists have to offer is not the 'whole' truth and that some of this truth will be just plain old 'wrong'. I would therefore prefer to keep it as a working hypothesis and not let it become my ideology. That way I can be receptive to the next idea/theory. Now flame me! Madeleine Pym mpym@hive.netkonect.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 13:14:26 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: BEE Dances In-Reply-To: <200001040500.AAA23689@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Re Bee dances In this forum, Adrian Wenner has repeatedly stated that the bee language hypothesis is not being treated objectively but is a "fairy tale" accepted by the weak-minded, gullible, and subservient. Before anyone even had a chance to view the NOVA broadcast, he began to give us his side. He wrote: 1) In its half century of existence, the bee language hypothesis has provided no practical benefit to beekeepers; This statement has no bearing on the validity of the hypothesis. Much of scientific research has no clear economic value. Unfortunately, much research is discontinued for just this reason- there is no monetary profit in it. Seeley and others continue their research into the internal hive functions, with no economic goal in mind. 2) Apparently no one has been able to repeat James Gould's experiments and obtain his results (a requisite before one should accept such results); Which experiments? Gould conducted hundreds of experiments, as described in his book "The Honet Bee," Scientific American, 1988. Did Wenner attempt to repeat the experiments, or simply conduct experiments designed to reinforce his own hypothesis? It is already known that many species of bees use odor to locate food sources. Von Frisch mentions this and states that some "primitive" species (Melipona) even add bursts of buzzing to indicate distance (but not direction). More "advanced" species (Apis florea) dance, but only in the sunlight and point to the direction of the food source relative to the sun. All of these are supplementary to giving samples of nectar and odor. 3) Language proponents no longer seem able to phrase a concise scientific statement (one with predictive power) of their favored hypothesis, a necessary condition for future quality research; Does Wenner question that the information about direction and distance is encoded in the dance? Or does he mean that the information is imprecise? The apparent imprecision of the information should not surprise us since bees are supposed to visit acres of flowers, not saucers of sugar sirup, and their brains are exceedingly small which means that what information they may be able to retain could not be highly specific. Furthermore, most of the experiments that have been done within 1 kilometer of the hive, well within the range of floral odors, where a sophisticated communication system would not even be needed. 4) Much evidence has accumulated that sharply conflicts with the original 1946 Karl von Frisch interpretation (Wenner, A.M. and P.H. Wells 1990, Kak, S.C. 1991, Vadas, R.L. Jr. 1994; No one doubts this; much evidence exists to contradict Darwin's theory of evolution. These are theories that help us to describe the empirical evidence. Just as we may never know the truth of evolution, we may never know the truth of the bee dance. All the same, more genetic underpinnings to the evolutionary theory are being unearthed each day. Precisely because honeybee communication has so little potential for economic exploitation, the incentive for truly exhaustive study is lacking. 5) A 1937 von Frisch interpretation about odor search behavior has more validity than the highly touted language notion (Wenner, A.M. with K. von Frisch 1993). Is this objectivity? Is he asking us to compare the work of Kirschner to his work or is he simply stating that his ideas are simply better than anyone else's? Since he never even mentions the studies using the robot honeybees, one wonders if he is even aware of this recent research. See: The Sensory Basis of the Honeybee's Dance Language by Wolfgang H. Kirchner and William F. Towne Scientific American, June 1994 "Novel experiments, such as training bees to respond to sounds and recruiting them using a robot, have ended several debates surrounding the dance language." http://www.sciam.com/0694issue/0694kirchner.html Evidently this debate had been going on since the late 1960s. In thirty years, very few people have been persuaded to abandon the dance language hypothesis. It is described in all major works on the honeybee. Wenner feels that there has been a concerted effort to dismiss his findings for reasons entirely separate from their validity. While having the majority of the world's bee experts accepting the dance language hypothesis does not validate it, this does fit in with the concept of peer review. I have no doubt that at this point that many in the scientific community will choose to not even enter this debate since it has degenerated to the level of posturing and insults. In fact, I had made up my mind to stay out of it, but as many vague generalizations have been posted here in support of the dance language hypothesis, I felt compelled to share what I learned from reading. See: Tom Seeley's ongoing work http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/seeley/seeley.html Peter Borst Apiary Technician Dyce Honeybee Lab Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 plb6@cornell.edu http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/plb6/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 20:27:52 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Rex Boys Subject: Swarm prediction and the Apidictor MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In my postings of New Year's Eve and 4th Jan., I described some of = the research on beesoundsdone by my old colleague, the late E.F.Woods. However, he was best known for his invention of the Apidictor which = has received 25 mentions on this site in the past 12 months so I thought = that today I would prattle on about this. Sound engineers are familiar with a phenomenon known as the = 'cocktail party effect'. This is the ability of the human brain, in a = room full of chattering people, to pick out and concentrate on one = conversation, not necessarily the loudest. Eddie was blessed with this = ability and it served him well when listening to the medley of sounds = that his microphone picked up in the hive. One sound that caught his attention was a sort of warbling noise = that varied between the notes A and C sharp; that's 225 - 285 Hz in = terms of frequency. He noticed that this sound got steadily louder, = then it stopped and a day or so later a swarm took off. Eventually, he decided that it was made by the 4=BD - 6 day old = nurse bees, his reasoning being as follows:- In a normal colony there are about 4,000 nurse bees, half of which feed = the brood and the other half the queen who eats 20 times her own weight = in a day. When a colony decides to swarm, its first action is to reduce the = supply of food to the queen in order to slim her down into a condition = for flying. This puts some of the nurse bees out of work and reduces = her egg laying. Hence, a few days later, there are fewer larvae to feed = so more nurse bees become unemployed and the whole process is = progressive. The nurses have to get rid of the energy that would go into food = production so they probably stand there exercising by flapping their = wings, fanning, in fact, but how do we account for the peculiar = frequency? In flight, an adult bee flaps its wings 250 times a second but when = fanning, it grips the comb and this brings the frequency down to 190 Hz. = (Hz is just an abbreviation for Hertz which is the engineer's word for = 'times a second'.) However, a young bee's wings do not harden = completely until it is 9 days old and until then the resonant frequency = is higher. It may be that 4=BD day wings resonate at 285Hz and the 6 = day old ones at 225Hz and the sound is a mixture of single frequencies = rather than a collection of warbles from individual bees. Eddie built a simple audio frequency amplifier with microphone and = headphones and incorporated what is known as a bandpass filter. This = allowed the frequency band 225-285Hz through to the ear and blocked off = the rest, making it easier to hear. Note that the flight frequency of 250 Hz falls in this band which is = why the tests should be made in the evening after flying has stopped. Eddie stressed that the warble does not necessarily indicate a = swarm; it indicates that the queen has gone off lay and there could be = other reasons. In any case, it means a brood nest inspection is needed. =20 If you give a hive a knock with the flat of the hand, the bees hiss = at you and this is something that Eddie listened to very carefully. = Under normal conditions it is a short sharp noise, lasting about =BD a = second, starting and finishing quite suddenly; the bees are alert and = defensive. If a swarm is in the offing, the bees are in a = happy-go-lucky mood, the sound is not so loud, rising and falling less = sharply. Eddie described this as a loyalty sound and he fitted another = filter to help pick it out. =20 With this instrument he found he could get up to three weeks warning = of swarm preparations and was alerted 10 days before queen cells were = started. He fitted the instrument with a 3-position switch for listening to = the normal hive noise, the warble and the hiss. With added refinements = he called it the Apdictor, patented it and marketed it in 1964, selling = about 300 worldwide. The reason it never caught on, I suspect, is because most beekeepers = were non-technical and very conservative. How often have you heard them = say, "It was good enough for my father and it is good enough for me"? = Nevertheless, those beekeepers who mastered it swore by it and some are = still in use today, 36 years later. Last year I was instrumental in = getting faults cured for two users who were anxious to get faulty ones = working again. Today we live in a more technical world with advances in = miniaturisation, chips and so on and I think such an instrument would be = more acceptable. Indeed, my vision is of a detector in every hive with a little = transmitter that sends a signal back to base whenever the warble exceeds = the critical level. Having 'inherited' many of Eddie's papers, I have been able to study = his work over the years, have written a small book about it and can = supply technical data if anybody happens to have an Apidictor that needs = repair. As yet I have not worked out how to send diagrams over = the internet but in the UK, I am happy to send copies to anyone who = sends two first class stamps to me at The Cottage, Chapel Lane, = Westmancote, GL20 7ER. Rex Boys =20 =20 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:44:17 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Bee Dances Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Peter Borst wrote (1:14 pm 1/9/00): >Re Bee dances > >In this forum, Adrian Wenner has repeatedly stated that the bee >language hypothesis is not being treated objectively but is a "fairy >tale" accepted by the weak-minded, gullible, and subservient. (Etc., including many errors of fact and interpretation) ******** By now most readers of this forum must know that such a statement is totally unfair and the sort of language we encountered when we first experimentally tested (by more rigorous designs than proponents used) the language hypothesis in the 1960s and 1970s and found it wanting. Of the dozens of messages posted on this subject recently and received by me privately, Peter's comments have been the only such hostile expressions. I will provide a summary of that input when time permits. In the meantime, consider one of Peter's final statements: "In thirty years, very few people have been persuaded to abandon the dance language hypothesis." Actually, my files now bulge with supportive statements from both beekeepers and bee researchers, in sharp contrast to Peter's impression. My colleagues and I feel very good about the success of our educational efforts this past decade (after having taken a successful leave of absence into marine biology for two decades) --- with regard to the weaknesses of the bee language hypothesis. Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone) 967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX) Santa Barbara, CA 93106 ******************************************************************************* * * "...it is lamentable how each man draws his own different conclusions * from the very same fact" * * Charles Darwin, in a letter to Alfred Russel Wallace on 1 May 1857 * ******************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:48:24 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barbara Belyea Organization: University of Calgary Subject: retraction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I stand corrected: your list replies on the need to discuss the state of science are very convincing. The reason I jumped at this thread was that last year a list I helped to set up was led far from its mandate and took months to return. It is my place to learn from you. I do apologize if I have offended any participants. BB -- Barbara Belyea Dept of English, University of Calgary Calgary (Alberta) Canada T2N 1N4 vox: 403-220-4656/5470 fax: 403-289-1123 web: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~belyea/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 19:44:29 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: "The State Of Science" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Al wrote (in part, in reponse to Barbara Belyea's questioning of whether issues such as scientific protocol belonged on the BEE-L docket): >The state of science is critical to many of the issues found on this list. >It provides the context of every posting that deals with the subject of >beekeeping from a scientific perspective. --- CLIP --- >I would also like to remind all who are concerned about the rules of this >list, and logic and science in general, that there is a thing called "ad >hominem" arguments or attacks. ******** I feel that Al was right on the mark on this topic --- with his response gratiously acknowledged later by Barbara. We have a great deal of poor quality science occurring in the scientific community, despite the fact that scientists live in a sheltered environment while supported by taxpayers. Many of the beekeepers I know, though, are very sharp people and can see through pronouncements made by bee scientists who may have had insufficient exposure to the real world of beekeeping and who have actually have had very little education about the true process of science. They seem not to understand that one can easily gather supportive evidence for prevailing notions by ignoring evidence that does not fit dogma --- as evidenced in all fields of science (e.g., "cold fusion," "N-rays," "water with a memory," etc.). We find one excellent example from the 1930s, when an entomologist insisted that deer bot flies could travel 880 miles per hour. That claim was eagerly embraced by the scientific community at the time (the exotic sells very readily). That supposed ability of the flies became inserted into textbooks and diagrams in scientific journals and the popular media, with no challenge for a decade. Just a few years ago I saw a clip of that claim appear in a local newspaper, despite the fact that it was debunked by simple experimental evidence decades earlier. Kudos also to Elizabeth Petofi for her comments. Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone) 967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX) Santa Barbara, CA 93106 ******************************************************************************* * * "...it is lamentable how each man draws his own different conclusions * from the very same fact" * * Charles Darwin, in a letter to Alfred Russel Wallace on 1 May 1857 * ******************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 19:44:36 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Varroa resistance? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In the September issue of the AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL I published a letter (page 658) that described briefly a "bootstrap" experiment that Paul Cronshaw (a local beekeeper and chiropractor) and I have been running on feral (wild) colonies that somehow have survived varroa infestation on their own. That is, Santa Barbara sits in a most unusual geographic location --- on the ocean and with a vast forest and wilderness area behind it. In addition, a city ordinance prohibits beekeeping in the city limits. When varroa came into the area in the late 1980s, nevertheless, colony collapse occurred throughout the area. However, feral colonies have now rebounded both in the backcountry and in the city itself. For several years Paul has gathered swarms and removed colonies from buildings and trees (obviously never treated for varroa) these past few years and has established an apiary for these colonies in a remote location. He has treated none of those colonies for varroa or any other affliction. Last week I carefully inspected all twelve colonies but could find no overt evidence of varroa activity --- no mites riding around on bees and no bees with wrinkled wings. All colonies were queenright and had an even pattern of brood, although most suffered from starvation symptoms (no rain since last spring, in the second year of a drought). With a little supplemental feeding we expect all colonies to recover quickly, now that the eucalyptus is in bloom. Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone) 967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX) Santa Barbara, CA 93106 ******************************************************************************* * * "...it is lamentable how each man draws his own different conclusions * from the very same fact" * * Charles Darwin, in a letter to Alfred Russel Wallace on 1 May 1857 * ******************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:52:29 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Joseph Augusta Subject: Re: "Inside the Animal Mind" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Adrian Wenner wrote: > > In the meantime, PBS has announced a new series, "Inside the Animal > Mind," starting tonight and continuing with two other episodes in the next > couple of weeks. It's already been on TV here on the East Coast--and it does well in presenting both sides of the argument on animal intelligence--so viewers are left to make their own decision. best wishes, Joseph > > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 23:50:58 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: christopher.slade@ZBEE.COM Organization: ZbeeNet computer networking for beekeepers Subject: BEESOUNDS CHRS: IBMPC 2 CODEPAGE: 850 MSGID: 240:244/186 8174f62a REPLY: 240:44/0 202e8dcf PID: FDAPX/w 1.13 UnReg(48) The only times I have heard the queen piping (twice in 22 years) is when I have been in danger of squashing her or I have separated her in a super from the rest of the hive and she has protested and demanded that I put her back at once! Chris Slade --- * Origin: Beenet Point (240:244/186) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:26:27 SAST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Karl Dehning Subject: splits & queen intro's Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Hello all, I ask for advice with South African Apis mellifera Capensis in mind. There seems to be two thoughts when splitting strong colonies. One class thinks it better to keep the "mother" in the split at the original hive site with some brood and food. Moving the queenless split away, to let the older flying bees return to mommy. The nurse bees staying with the introduced Queen cells or for emergency cell production. The other thought (also my preferance) says: Take 3 frames brood with another frame honey and pollen to a nuc box - ensure queen also moves into nuc. Move this away. Now the workforce is concentrated to the original site where cell building commences, or queen cells are introduced. Mommy will rapidly build up the nuc box again at the remote site. I'd like to hear from all that have their methods or preferances. What is the better methodology? Regards Karl Dehning Sunny South Africa - "where queens are bred Bigger and Blacker"! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 00:59:13 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: P-O Gustafsson Subject: Re: Apis mellifera mellifera MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > A. m. mellifera ( mellifica to some) is alive and well, and ALWAYS has > been. For those interested, there is a project going on since 10 years on that bee. http://www.nordbi.nu Most text is in swedish, but there are nice pictures that's universal. -- Regards P-O Gustafsson, Sweden beeman@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~beeman/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 23:04:48 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ron Law Subject: How scientific is scientific? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The following editorial in the British Medical Journal might be of interest to some in light of recent discussion about the objectivity of science. BMJ 1997;315:759-760 (27 September) Editorials Peer review: reform or revolution? Time to open up the black box of peer review As recently as 10 years ago we had almost no evidence on peer review, a process at the heart of science. Then a small group of editors and researchers began to urge that peer review could itself be examined using scientific methods. The result is a rapidly growing body of work, much of it presented at the third international congress on peer review held in Prague last week. The central message from the conference was that there is something rotten in the state of scientific publishing and that we need radical reform. The problem with peer review is that we have good evidence on its deficiencies and poor evidence on its benefits. We know that it is expensive, slow, prone to bias, open to abuse, possibly anti-innovatory, and unable to detect fraud. We also know that the published papers that emerge from the process are often grossly deficient. Research presented at the conference showed, for instance, that reports of randomised controlled trials often fail to mention previous trials and do not place their work in the context of what has gone before; that routine reviews rarely have adequate methods and are hugely biased by specialty and geography in the references they quote (p 766); and that systematic reviews rarely define a primary outcome measure. Perhaps because scientific publishing without peer review seems unimaginable, nobody has ever done what might be called a placebo controlled trial of peer review. It has not been tested against, for instance, editors publishing what they want with revision, and letting the correspondence columns sort out the good from the bad and point out the strengths and weaknesses of studies. Most studies have compared one method of peer review with another and used the quality of the review as an outcome measure rather than the quality of the paper. One piece of evidence we did have from earlier research was that blinding reviewers to the identity of authors improved the quality of reviews,1 but three larger studies presented at the congress found that it did not. The new studies also found that blinding was successful in only about half to two thirds of cases. One of those studies—by Fiona Godlee from the BMJ and two colleagues—might also be interpreted as showing that peer review "does not work." The researchers took a paper about to be published in the BMJ, inserted eight deliberate errors, and sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers: 221 (53%) responded. The median number of errors spotted was two, nobody spotted more than five, and 16% didn't spot any. How should editors—and those deciding on grant applications—respond to the growing body of evidence on peer review and the publishing of scientific research? The most extreme sometimes argue that peer review, journals, and their editors should be thrown into the dustbin of history and authors allowed to communicate directly with readers through the internet. Readers might use intelligent electronic agents ("knowbots" is one name) to help them find valid research that meets their needs. This position is being heard less often, and at the conference Ron LaPorte—an American professor of epidemiology who has predicted the death of biomedical journals2 —took a milder position on peer review. He sees a future for it. Readers seem to fear the firehose of the internet: they want somebody to select, filter, and purify research material and present them with a cool glass of clean water. Peer review is unlikely to be abandoned, but it may well be opened up. At the moment most scientific journals, including the BMJ, operate a system whereby reviewers know the name of authors but authors don't know who has reviewed their paper. Nor do authors know much about what happens in the "black box" of peer review. They submit a paper, wait, and then receive a message either rejecting or accepting it: what happens in the meantime is largely obscure. Drummond Rennie—deputy editor (West) of JAMA and organiser of the congress—argued that the future would bring open review, whereby authors know who has reviewed their paper. Such a proposal was floated several years ago in Cardiovascular Research, and several of the editors who were asked to respond (including Dr Rennie; Stephen Lock, my predecessor; and me) said that open review would have to happen.3 Indeed, several journals already use it. The argument for open review is ultimately ethical—for putting authors and reviewers in equal positions and for increasing accountability. Electronic publishing can allow peer review to be open not only to authors but also to readers. Most readers don't care much about peer review and simply want some assurance that papers published are valid, but some readers, particularly researchers, will want to follow the scientific debate that goes on in the peer review process. It could also have great educational value. With electronic publishing we may put shorter, crisper versions in the paper edition of the journal and longer, more scientific versions on our website backed up by a structured account of the peer review process. The Medical Journal of Australia and the Cochrane Collaboration have already made progress with using the internet to open up peer review. The Australians have been conducting a trial of putting some of their accepted papers on to their website together with the reviewers' comments some two months before they appear in print. They invite people to comment and give authors a chance to revise their paper before final publication. Contributors, editors, reviewers, and readers have all appreciated the process, although few changes have been made to papers. The Medical Journal of Australia now plans to extend its experiment and begin to use the web for peer review of submitted manuscripts. The Cochrane Collaboration puts the protocols of systematic reviews on the web together with software that allows anybody to comment in a structured way—so long as they give their names. Protocols have been changed as a result. The collaboration also invites structured responses to published reviews. These are particularly important because those who have contributed reviews are committed to keeping them up to date in response to important criticisms and new evidence. Dr Rennie predicted a future in which the such a commitment to the "aftercare" of papers would apply also to those publishing in paper journals. At the moment papers are frozen at publication, even when destroyed by criticism in letters columns. I believe that this conference will prove to have been an important moment in the history of peer review. The BMJ now intends to begin opening up peer review to contributors and readers and invite views on how we should do this. Soon closed peer review will look as anachronistic as unsigned editorials. Robin Smith, Editor, BMJ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:32:17 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lackey, Raymond" Subject: Swarm prediction and the Apidictor MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I also work with electronics technology in a military direction. Many years ago, when we were trying to use sound for tracking s.... , ah..., boats, yea, that's it. One of the engineers was able to detect propeller noise much better than others. It turned out that he had a hearing problem that filtered out the higher frequency noise that blocked the sound of interest from detection by others. There are single chip devices out there today that can perform a complete spectral analysis. I also agree that future beekeeping will include remote sensing devices. I'm playing with some designs now, as a hobbyist. It is completely possible today, but when will it become economical? I don't believe honey production will be the driver. Raymond J. Lackey Sweet Pines Apiary Honeybee Consultant - North American Fruit Explorers Master Beekeeper - Eastern Apiculture Society/OSU Past President - Long Island Beekeepers Association Speaker -BOCES (schools) and LI Speaker's Association ~40 colonies(honey) >18 years experience on Long Island Phone:(631)567-1936 FAX:(631)262-8053 mail: 1260 Walnut Avenue, Bohemia, NY 11716-2176 web page: http://www.tianca.com/tianca2.html email home: raymondj@cleanweb.net email office: lackeyr@hazeltine.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:48:09 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Swarm prediction and the Apidictor In-Reply-To: <200001101441.JAA23736@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ... There are single chip devices out there today > that can perform a complete spectral analysis. > I also agree that future beekeeping will include > remote sensing devices. I had a chance to spend some time with Jerry B. from Missoula while we were at the American Honey Producers Association meeting in San Diego. Among many other amazing things, he tells me that his neural network system have been able to predict swarms after watching bee comings and goings at the hive entrances for some time -- even though the networks had never 'experienced' a swarm before. Apparently, they predicted accurately the number of bees that would leave at a specific future time, but, due to lack of experience, did not know that the bees would not come back! Jerry was not able to cover all his work in much depth in the time allotted for his talk, due to a very full meeting agenda, but what time he was allowed, he filled with a lot of exiting ideas and facts from his research. In the past few years, the cost of remote real time measurement has plummeted and Jerry measures =everything=. These measurement have resulted in some rather amazing observations and the ability to do experiments remotely. If I understood him correctly, he could easily set up something so that the neural networks could simulate an Apidictor or listen to sounds through filters and learn to interpret them. Of course time and funding are constraints to following this up. Maybe Jerry will find a few moments to report to the list some of the things he was able to bring to San Diego. I hope so. allen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 15:14:19 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: m12345@IHUG.CO.NZ Subject: 2 queen hives Comments: To: bee-l@cnsibm.albany.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" can anyone tell me what piece of apparatus is used to separate the queens in a 2 queen hive? i can't find any references in my usual beekeeping books. a jpg or gif wld be nice..... thanx, mark ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:49:42 -0500 Reply-To: tvf@umich.edu Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ted Fischer Organization: ACB Dept., Univ of Michigan Subject: Re: Swarm prediction and the Apidictor MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick wrote: > Among many other amazing things, he tells me that his neural network system have > been able to predict swarms after watching bee comings and goings at the hive > entrances for some time -- even though the networks had never 'experienced' a > swarm before. I really don't understand what is being discussed here. From my point of view (as a professional anatomist) I understand "his neural network system" as being essentially the same as his nervous system, i.e. his brain, spinal cord and nerves. I don't think that is what is being meant here, so Allen, could you clue me in on the real topic. Ted Fischer Dexter, Michigan USA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:21:15 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Max Watkins Subject: CHALKBROOD research In-Reply-To: <200001071223.HAA27910@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Vita (Europe) Limited is trialling a new biological control agent for chalkbrood developed through universities in Europe and the Middle East. Looks promising but we need to do further tests this spring. I'll keep you informed as to progress. Max Dr Max Watkins Vita (Europe) Limited Tel 44 (0) 1256 473177 Brook House, Alençon Link, Fax 44 (0) 1256 473179 Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 7RD, UK http//www.vita.demon.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:07:48 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Two queen hives MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark wonders about separating the queens in two-queen hives. Two-queen hives are run with either the queens side-by-side, or up and down. If up and down, queen separation is really easy as a plain bottom board will do the job. But so will a piece of plywood. The difficulty with up and down is that the top hive (with supers) must be removed every time the beekeeper wants to add a super to, take a super off, or inspect the lower hive. The most use I have seen with up and down two-queen hives has been to build really strong hives for comb honey production. This is something I do not recommend, as reduction to one hive and adding comb honey supers means the beekeeper is constantly fighting the swarming tendency. Side-by-side two queen hives work extremely well. The queens are kept separated by plywood, hardboard, or something similar. It is best to insert these into 1/4" deep slots sawn into the wood before the hives are assembled. The same slots should be cut into supers. The best method I have seen involved the slots and plywood and a common bottom board. However, the bottom board had a lug inserted so that the plywood insert sat into a slot cut into it. Supers had just the slots, but the inserts sat right on top of the inserts of the hive or super below. The precision required to get the slots in the right place meant that the new wood had to be purchased from the same manufacturing dealer at the same time. This beekeeper starts these two-queen hives in the early spring with splits. Above he puts either one deep or two mediums with foundation. This gives him sufficient new frames for normal replacement of old comb. When the foundation is well drawn, which doesn't take long, he puts on a queen excluder and then puts on Ross Round(tm) supers. When I saw them, he had almost 50 two-queen hives with 5-6 Ross Round(tm) supers on every one! (The purpose of the queen excluder is to keep the queens from finding each other in the unrestricted supers.) Apparently the bees can mix together above the excluders without any difficulties. Up and down two queen hives are a tremendous amount of work. Side by side two queen hives require some accurate wood modification. Both can result in unbelievable amounts of production. Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. www.rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 20:08:12 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Rex Boys Subject: Apidictor Economics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 1) Thanks to Raymond Lackey for providing a concrete example of the = cocktail party effect. 2) He queried the economics of the apidictor so lets us do some simple = arithmetic. In the swarming season you have to examine each colony every 8 days = taking, say 15 mins. per hive. On average 90% of these indicate that no action is required and 10% = show swarm preparations.(If a colony swarms every 2 years and you = inspect it 10 times a season, that means swarm preparations are found = once every 20 checks so 95% are wasted but I like to be conservative and = call it 90%!) Thus a commercial beekeeper with 100 hives spends 100 x 15mins =3D = 25 hours every 8 days, inspecting his hives. An apidictor check takes less than 30 seconds so this would take him = 100 x 0.5 =3D 50mins. 10 of these would show the need for a full = inspection which would take him a further 10 x 15mins. =3D 2.5hrs. Total time taken =3D 3hrs.20 mins saving him 21h.40m. every 8 days. Suppose 10 inspections are needed in the season he would save 217 = hours. Multiply this by the hourly rate for labour in the country where you = live and that is the annual saving he would make by using an apidictor. = I think you will conclude that even a fairly expensive instrument would = be viable for people with fewer than 100 hives. The one-man businesses = would have time to run more hives and increase their profits. 3) On my recent posting about the apidictor, you may have received = things like 4BD. This is the way the net interprets my signal for a = half. In future I'll put 4.5. In the above, whatever it sends for % = means percent. Rex Boys ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:59:55 +0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Temo Gogoberidze Subject: Re: 2 queen hives MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Mark, > can anyone tell me what piece of apparatus is used to separate the queens in > a 2 queen hive? A few years ago I red an article by American beekeeper (unfortunately I do not remember his name) about 2 queen hives. The conclusion of author was following: when one forms 2 queen hive from 2 usual hives, during first 3 weeks it's nessesary to separate them by duble wire netting (wire mesh) with cells 3X3mm. Author insisted that distance Between the wire mashes must be 19mm. 3 weeks later he changed double wire mashes to usual queen excluder. Temuri Gogoberidze, caucasian queen breeder, "Georgian Queens" Station 384230 Patara Jikhaishi, Imereti, GEORGIA E-mail: gogober@geo.net.ge Web: http://www.beekeeping.com/georgian-queens/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:44:44 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: RFC822 error: Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored. From: "Keith B. Forsyth" Subject: Re: 2 queen hives MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi: Taken from The Beekeeper's Handbook 3rd edition by Sammataro and Avitabile, 1998 : " A Snelgrove or screen board, sometimes called a division board, is a double-screened, rimmed, inner cover-size board that has a small entrance on one side of the rim. It is used to make an increase, to split a colony, or to start a two-queen colony. The screen separates the queen and the bees in the lower part of a hive from the queen cells or new queen and bees placed above; the smaller colony above can take advantage of the heat generated from the colony below."... Hope this is of some help. Keith ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:16:33 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Re: "Inside the Animal Mind" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Joseph Augusta wrote: >[ The "Inside the Animal Mind" first episode has ] already been on TV here >on >the East Coast--and it does well in presenting both sides of the >argument on >animal intelligence--so viewers are left to make their own >decision. Yes, the first episode appeared here on the West Coast last Thursday, as well, with the next two episodes appearing this Thursday and a week later. Joseph was quite correct. Each time an exotic hypothesis was aired, the program had an expert in the field who could provide counter interpretation. In that sense, this series has succeeded in the scientific realm so far. Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone) 967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX) Santa Barbara, CA 93106 ******************************************************************************* * * "...it is lamentable how each man draws his own different conclusions * from the very same fact" * * Charles Darwin, in a letter to Alfred Russel Wallace on 1 May 1857 * ******************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:24:18 -0900 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tom Elliott Subject: Re: 2 queen hives MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark, I don't have any references beyond vague memories of articles in the journals. But, I have many times used 2 queen systems to get early large populations in our early, short season in Alaska. Beginning with packages I simply separate the two colonies with a queen excluder after a few days of separation with a screen board. Never a problem, but when the flow begins I remove on queen into a nuc colony and get rid of the excluder. Tom Elliott > can anyone tell me what piece of apparatus is used to separate the queens in > a 2 queen hive? i can't find any references in my usual beekeeping books. a > jpg or gif wld be nice..... > > thanx, mark -- "Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Tom Elliott Chugiak, Alaska U.S.A. beeman@gci.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 23:04:00 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ken Hoare Subject: Queen piping MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am amazed that the sound of queen piping appears to be a rarity to many on the list, Chris states twice in 22 years. Maybe my swarm control is somewhat lacking but many is the time that I have found queens by locating the frame from which the sound is emitting - and its not caused by a faulty hearing aid. Ken Hoare ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:57:06 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Greg Kendall Subject: Re: Dance Language In-Reply-To: <200001041341.IAA00280@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Peter Borst wrote: > Re: Dance Language > > The dance language of the honeybee is recognized by the majority of > researchers I see no data presented to support the above statement being anything but a guess. How do you know what "the majority of researchers" recognize? Greg Kendall gkendall@ncal.verio.com Pilot, beekeeper, packet hacker, gentleman rancher. El rancho del gato muerto 38 24 31 N 122 58 26 W ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 23:06:08 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Stan Sandler Subject: neural nets and bees Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Ted and All: >I really don't understand what is being discussed here. From my point of view (as >a professional anatomist) I understand "his neural network system" as being >essentially the same as his nervous system, i.e. his brain, spinal cord and >nerves. I don't think that is what is being meant here, so Allen, could you clue >me in on the real topic. A neural net computer program just simulates the dendritic connections at the end of the neurons. There are several "layers" of neurons, and there are connections possible from each neuron in one layer to each neuron in another layer. Then values are assigned to the neurons (frequencies, etc. in this case) and the program is allowed to run through many trials trying to predict a certain result (swarming in this case). The computer "learns" on its own through trial and error which pathways come closest to predicting the desired result. You can download some simple neural networks to playwith on your own computer for free from shareware or Simtel. Neural networks have been used very successfully for predicting some odd things like the stock market and generating computer speech. Where the factors are so complex that all the variables are difficult or impossible to put into equations to guide the computer then neural nets are often very useful. There is a professor in California named Terry Sejnowski I believe who is doing work modelling bee brain/behaviour using neural nets. I got a copy of one of his papers because I have a continuing fascination with the size and capability of the bee brain, but I would have to say that it was one of the most incomprehensible (to me) things I have ever read. Regards, Stan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 02:06:19 -0500 Reply-To: johnscott@mtgroup.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Scott Subject: Re: BEE-L Digest - 9 Jan 2000 to 10 Jan 2000 (#2000-11) In-Reply-To: <200001110503.AAA20874@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ted Fischer wrote: I really don't understand what is being discussed here. From my point of view (as a professional anatomist) I understand "his neural network system" as being essentially the same as his nervous system, i.e. his brain, spinal cord and nerves. I don't think that is what is being meant here, so Allen, could you clue me in on the .... Ted, et. al.: I don't promise this to be a highly scientific definition - its been a few years since my learning and memory classes. A "neural network" is a form of artificial intelligence that attempts to solve problems in the same way that the brain does. Based on a large database of information, the computer(s) processing in parallel, work through a branch of decisions/predictions following connections (like the neurons in the brain) that are weighted in terms of relevance based on past experience. - John Scott ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:49:15 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lackey, Raymond" Subject: Neural Nets, apidictor, and the almighty dollar MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" A computer is a machine that simulates logical processing. There have been many ways to program all kinds of machines over the years. Many years ago, adaptive processing was developed to process data where the output was correlated to the desired response to train the processor. (Much like Pavlov's dogs, positive feedback.) This has been used for a lot of applications, most common the echo canceller in the telephone lines, where a clean signal without echo is desired, requiring negative feedback. An example of positive feedback out of control is the squelch of microphone near a speaker. A few years ago, it was recognized that adaptive processing control loops simulated a neuron and it was conjectured that we could make a machine that would learn on its own instead of requiring programming. The researchers recognized the money trail and started calling adaptive processing and training algorithms by buzz words like neural nets, insinuating a brain. We have learned a lot about such learning systems but they still need guidance. You can program dumb computers, like your PC, to process information with feedback to teach it. This is very common in training vision systems where it is easier to train a computer to recognize a part that is correct and reject others that differ by telling it when it makes a proper decision rather than understand the key features that the computer is recognizing and programming the detailed information. The advantage of neural nets is that they can develop the correlations and learn to recognize the trigger indications without us knowing what to look for in the beginning. After sufficient data has been gathered and processed and rules are developed, it is simpler and lower cost to extract the triggers and rules and program a general purpose machine to look for those signals. The human mind is still necessary to interpret the data. Consider the hive monitor where it simply counts bees coming and going. When the day starts, no bees have left or come back. As the day progresses, a few bees leave and return a little later. They recruit more bees that start making trips. As the day progresses and the nectar flow increases, more bees are acting as field bees. If the total of bees out of the hive is tracked throughout the day, more bees should have left than returned. If that is not the case, an anomaly has occurred. The machine only knows that something is different. Man may step in and conclude that robbing is occurring and this needs to trigger an event: Notify beekeeper that robbing is occurring at hive QX758! The beekeeper then would need to investigate to determine what happened. As historical data is accumulated, the hive monitor would anticipate a certain data track during the day; more bees have always exited than entered, the difference fluctuates during the day with a peak that changes in time (the beekeeper may look at the peak time and draw a conclusion that the buckwheat is in flower because the peak occurred in the morning), at the end of the day some bees don't return - within a normal range (if a large number don't return another event has occurred). Conclusions and training still depend on the human. If bees leave at a near normal rate but the returns are very low, a pesticide kill may have occurred. If a large number exit very quickly in mid morning, a swarm may have just occurred. Neural nets are being used where tremendous amounts of information are being processed and sorted to detect correlation with an event of interest. For the beekeeper, the neural nets may help isolate those indicators to look for with a simpler detector. They are great for the researcher. In 1986, my team built an adaptive processor that performed 3.25 billion floating point operations a second, at the time the worlds fastest computer, to detect anomalies in 24 dimensional space. Today such neural nets are dealing with thousands of sensors to detect anomalies, events that need to be understood and interpreted. I am sure that I have exceeded the question as to what is a neural net for most of you but I hope that I have also shown how it can help us understand huge amounts of data. When Jerry and other researchers have identified what to look for, engineers like me will be happy to design it into a hive monitor that sits at the hive entrance, monitors daylight, temperature, precipitation, bee traffic, weight change, and even sounds of the hive and then report the events over the wireless pager network via satellite to the beekeepers managing thousands of colonies. Dealing with the economics, I could design such a monitor today. Unfortunately price is a function of quantity. If I could sell two million, I could sell them for $100 and make money. I agree that such a device could save significant labor but honey's price doesn't justify it yet. It is statistically lower cost to requeen annually and give up the wayward swarm. As pollination becomes more important, the economics of such devices and efficiency of utilization of capital invested may justify such measures. Raymond J. Lackey Sweet Pines Apiary Honeybee Consultant - North American Fruit Explorers Master Beekeeper - Eastern Apiculture Society/OSU Past President - Long Island Beekeepers Association Speaker -BOCES (schools) and LI Speaker's Association ~40 colonies(honey) >18 years experience on Long Island Phone:(631)567-1936 FAX:(631)262-8053 mail: 1260 Walnut Avenue, Bohemia, NY 11716-2176 web page: http://www.tianca.com/tianca2.html email home: raymondj@cleanweb.net email office: lackeyr@hazeltine.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:21:56 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ken Hoare Subject: Apis meliffera lingustica MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Information sought from the Southern Hemisphere. I firmly believe that what are generally known in the UK as New Zealand queens are not suited to our climate. Maybe alright around Auckland, speaking from experience definitely okay in Nelson, possibly even as far south as Christchurch. But is A.m.l. still the prevalent species below that point or does A.m.m. still reign supreme in Invercargill? A thought originating from a conversation with another beekeeper. I note with interest that the 2000 BIBBA conference is titled, 'Making the best of what we have got', much more sensible in my opinion than searching for a probably extinct, in the UK, PURE A.m.m. Ken Hoare ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:31:52 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: Artificial Neural Networks and Monitor Hives Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Raymond Lackey commented: Raymond, you did a great job of describing how ANNs could be combined with an electronic hive. But, sorry Raymond, we've had this capability for 5 years. That was the topic of my presentation at the American Honey Producers Association in San Diego last week. Only difference, we monitor many more weather parameters. We aren't monitoring sounds, but we have looked at sound in the past, and may re-visit that topic. I refer you to Robert Seccomb's 1998 M.S. Thesis entitled: "Real-Time Monitoring of Honey Bee (Apis Mellifera L.) Colony Dynamics with Internet Data Delivery and Behavior Analysis Using Artificial Networks" M.S. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, The University of Montana, Missoula. Our library should have a copy or you can get it from Ann Arbor, MI (the home of all graduate theses). His thesis is already being updated. He is working hard on the next iteration, which will be able to map beeyards or individual hive locations and provide a quick way of determining which hives are doing ok, which are dropping in weight or bees, and which are gaining bees and weight. Our electronic hive systems have evolved over the last 5 years into simpler and less expensive units. In 1994 we built the first prototypes and tested them in Maryland. In 1995 we deployed 21 units. Our initial systems required AC power, a shed to house the computers, and three PCs. In 1997, we added internet communications. In 1998 we built a ten hive system into a 6x6x12 ft enclosed trailer. The trailer had a digital weather station, 2 computers, wireless communications, sample freezers, and 10 hives (including a misting/ventilation system from transporting hives in hot weather). At the field site, the hives could be placed up to 100 ft from the trailer. This system was tested in cotton fields in 1999. Also in 1999, we built and tested a 5 hive, solar-powered system, with the solar panels and a single PC on a flatbed trailer. Again, the hives could be placed with 100 ft of the trailer. Currently, we have a stand-alone monitor or smart hive. It has its own solar/battery power, its own data processor, its own wireless communications, and a full array of sensors, including the ability to turn on other devices at the hive (such as an air sampler - which you might want to do if the bees stop coming back to the hive because they have been exposed to something toxic like pesticide drift). The good news is that prices keep dropping rapidly. The prototype stand-alone hive cost us about $2k (but remember, this hive has everything, including its own computer). Our first systems cost a lot more. For beekeepers with hives spread across large areas, we see in the short term a simpler system with some form of wireless communications. Our goal is to keep the costs below $500 per unit and to have this available in 12 months. Finally, the biggest challenge that we see is communications. Satellite uplink/downlink would seem to be best, especially in rural areas of the west. It would be great to be able to access satellite imaging of crops in bloom. Current charges for even the satellite communications from multiple sites would add up fast. My own recommendation is that beekeepers need to start thinking about how these technologies can be made available in a cost-effective manner. We need someone to build and market our systems - if we intend to get them out of the research arena and into beekeeper hands. The beekeeping industry needs rapid, inexpensive communications (and cell phones won't suffice in many areas - no coverage). I suspect many other areas of agriculture will have similar needs, as evidenced by the precision farming that is beginning to develop in the grain, cotton, sugar beet, and potatoe industries. Maybe its time for agriculture to either contract or send up its own satellite to provide inexpensive or free communications and imagery to support farmers. Cheers Jerry Jerry J. Bromenshenk jjbmail@selway.umt.edu http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:46:44 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Re: How scientific is scientific? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" After Richard Yarnell wrote: "The main difference [between popular and scientific writing] is "scientific method" and peer review. If we distinguish between hearsay and rigorous scientific reporting, a good deal of what is being discovered and published now should stand the test of time." Ron Law later posted the following message: >The following editorial in the British Medical Journal might be of >interest to some in light of recent discussion about the objectivity of >science. > >BMJ 1997;315:759-760 (27 September) > >Editorials: Peer review: reform or revolution? > >Time to open up the black box of peer review *********** Etc. (the entire editorial) ************* From firsthand experience my colleagues and I have learned the hard way that the anonymous review process largely accomplishes the following three end results: 1) Manuscripts that support prevailing viewpoint gain favorable reviews. 2) Grant proposals that would appear to yield supportive evidence for existing theory gain favorable reviews. 3) The anonymous review system can thus actually slow scientific progress. Patrick H. Wells and I provided documentation for one such episode in our own experience in Excursus EXC of our book: 1990 Wenner, A.M. and P.H. Wells. ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY: The Question of a "Language" Among Bees. Columbia University Press. (Ironically, that book received severe anonymous peer review at two levels before it was accepted for publication, a fact that has not deterred language proponents from ignoring its content.) Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone) 967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX) Santa Barbara, CA 93106 ******************************************************************************* * * "...it is lamentable how each man draws his own different conclusions * from the very same fact" * * Charles Darwin, in a letter to Alfred Russel Wallace on 1 May 1857 * ******************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:46:55 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Bee Dances, etc. Comments: cc: cole888@earthlink.net, jbarthell@ucok.edu, ponerine@dakotacom.net, greenber@WSUHUB.UC.TWSU.EDU, HPSST-L@POST.QUEENSU.CA, SOCINSCT@listserv.albany.edu, Dadant@dadant.com, KenFrazier@compuserve.com, cherubini@MINDSPRING.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We have now had an extended, spirited, and related discussion of Bee Dances, The State of Science, and Inside the Animal Mind. Now that the "dust has settled," so to speak, let me provide a tally. According to my count, 19 people responded on the BEE-L network and 12 sent messages directly to me on the topic of bee language and how one might go about studying such a hypothesis. Twelve of the respondents provided strong support for the statements I had made, four requested reprints, 11 expressed either neutrality or a request for more objectivity, three had slightly negative comments, but only one person exhibited what I interpreted to be open hostility in the extended exchange. Obviously, the topic proved worthy of discussion in this venue. Perhaps events such as these reveal the true advantage of open exchange between specialists and non-specialists --- it all becomes an educational experience. In a subsequent posting I will provide members of these lists with exerpts from some of the comments. Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone) 967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX) Santa Barbara, CA 93106 ******************************************************************************* * * "...it is lamentable how each man draws his own different conclusions * from the very same fact" * * Charles Darwin, in a letter to Alfred Russel Wallace on 1 May 1857 * ******************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:13:36 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Science & Romantic Notions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Lest subscribers think of me as too serious, they should know that romantic treatments are fine with me. Consider for example one of my favorite childrens' books: 1984 (paper) NED KELLY & THE CITY OF THE BEES by Thomas Keneally (author of SCHINDLER'S LIST). David R. Godine, Publisher; Box 9103 Lincoln, MA 01773 ISBN 1-56792-022-5 Ned slipped into a coma --- but actually (for the sake of the story) he spent a summer in a bee hive in the company of a 120-year-old girl called Nancy Clancy. To do so, of course, he had to become miniaturized to her size. A young child can learn much about life in a bee colony by reading the book. No, I am sure it was not peer reviewed. Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone) 967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX) Santa Barbara, CA 93106 ***************************************************************************** * * "...it is lamentable how each man draws his own different conclusions * from the very same fact" * * Charles Darwin, in a letter to Alfred Russel Wallace on 1 May 1857 * ***************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:17:12 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: BEE-L Digest - 9 Jan 2000 to 10 Jan 2000 (#2000-11) In-Reply-To: <200001110503.AAA20874@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Greg wrote: How do you know what "the majority of researchers" recognize? Response: Quote: "Section 3.35 - Communication about forage" "This section presents the generally accepted hypothesis that honeybees are able to communicate information about forage by 'dances.' Among those who do not accept it, Rosin (1988)* summarizes the counter-arguments." * Rosin, R. (1988) Do honey bees still have a 'dance language?' American Bee Journal 128(4): 267-286. From "Bees and Beekeeping," by Eva Crane, 1990, Cornell University Press. (Eva Crane was the Director of the Bee Research Association from its beginning in 1949 until 1983, when she retired. It became the International Bee Research Foundation in 1976. For 30 years she edited "Bee World," "Apicultural Abstracts," and the "Journal of Apicultural Research." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Peter Borst Apiary Technician Dyce Honeybee Lab Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 plb6@cornell.edu - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:14:12 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ron Law Subject: Scientific fly fishing while waiting for bees to come home MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A rather humorous study of the scientific method reported in the British Medical Journal. Enjoy! http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7174/1678 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:41:24 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Two Queen Hive Management MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This is one of the most covered topics in the archives! Good reading if you search 'em! Point your browser at: http://listserv.albany.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l "two queen" (no quotes) as a subject search gives 75 hits! "Snelgrove" gives fewer hits, but arguably better reading. Either way, you'll have volumes to read! Good stuff too! Some of my favorite authors! Aaron Morris - thinking the archives are great when you use 'em! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:08:10 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Scott Moser Subject: Queen Rearing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings all, I still cant get over that it is almost the middle of January, and here in St. Louis, the daytime temps are pushing 60 degrees! I noticed the maple tree buds are beginning to swell! Wont be long I guess. There have been lots of posts on letting a split rear their own queen. I tend to believe that this is a good practice usually, especially if you have an outstanding queen. What I was wondering is this. Will a 4 frame nuc create a good queen, or are they just too small and weak to do the job? I want to increase this year, but dont want to weaken any hive too much, and would prefer to start the hives from nucs. Thanks all! Scott ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:07:56 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Queen Rearing In-Reply-To: <200001120013.TAA22856@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Will a 4 frame nuc create a good queen, or are they > just too small and weak to do the job? Well, we thrashed this topic over pretty well last year. You probably remember the controversy, and I'll assume you may have done some recent browsing in the archives to refresh the points that were made by both sides on this issue. By now, we have now had time to let things settle a bit, and I'll try to summarise my understanding. You may draw out some other points of view as well. There are some reasons that one might wish to purchase a queen, especially now that the Russian bees are showing promise and will be released for breeding, but if you have good bees, there is just as good reason to stick with them, and you will have the satisfaction of knowing your queen is well raised if you are scrupulous in selecting the parent hive(s) and in paying attention to the signals your bees give you. I think that the long and the short of it is this: Such a nuc can do a very nice job under the following circumstances: * The bees must be of a sort that will start cells readily and maintain them * The bees must be healthy and well fed at all times * The eggs or larvae to make queens must come from hives that have plenty of feed * There must be lots of young bees * The weather must be settled enough that the bees can maintain a comfortable hive and the queen can mate * There must be plenty of mature drones when the queen is ready to mate * The drones must be from hives with desirable traits. Don't try to start before some of your hives have a good number of drones sealed and well under way. That is a good indicator of good nutritional status and guarantees drone availability. Uncap a few and check for varroa before you count on your drones being numerous and being able to stand at stud. More and more the limiting factor in raising good queens is coming down to the drones available. allen ----- See if your questions have been answered in over a decade of discussions. BEE-L archives & more: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Bee-l.htm Search sci.agriculture.beekeeping at http://www.deja.com/ or visit http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee to access both on the same page. > > Thanks all! > Scott > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 07:29:30 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lackey, Raymond" Subject: electronic hives MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Jerry J Bromenshenk wrote " Raymond, you did a great job of describing how ANNs could be combined with an electronic hive. But, sorry Raymond, we've had this capability for 5 years. " I know that you have had it for years and I have really enjoyed reading about it but your goal of $500 per unit is too high. I have designed electronics for the cellular market and our company has designed electronics for the industrial market. You need to look at the total economics. Technology changes rapidly. In ten years that $500 unit will have to be replaced. Did it earn its keep? Did in increase a hive's value by a minimum of $100 per year. If not, I lost money in using it! I will stand by my claim that the price of honey today will not justify it. I recently was with my wife in a store and she was taken by the price of a 5 pound jar of Virginia honey at $5. It took a while but I finally found the small print that said it was honey from USA, China, and Argentina. We are in a world economy and labor is going to be cheap somewhere for a long, long time. In ten years, if pollination needs drive it, the drop of electronics costs will probably allow an electronic hive monitor to be justified. I do not believe that honey will be favored enough by the general public to drive its cost up to economic levels for such modernization. I have designed boards with a simple computer processor/controller where the sell price was under $50. We had material costs of under $20 but these boards had to be designed to self test on assembly because they were too inexpensive to have someone spend half an hour trying to find out what was wrong. That would have eaten the profit! It is not easy migrating something from a lab curiosity to a consumer item. Electronics need distribution, maintenance, technical support, and packaging. A hobbyist would have a hard time being nice to the electronics in a hive. A commercial beekeeper, who is your target, won't want anything that couldn't survive being stepped on or driven over!!! My paradigm also has a central gathering point for each yard that would have the weather monitor and wireless local loop to each hive and then the satellite link back but the cost of the hive unit has to be under $10/year total cost. Raymond J. Lackey Sweet Pines Apiary Honeybee Consultant - North American Fruit Explorers Master Beekeeper - Eastern Apiculture Society/OSU Past President - Long Island Beekeepers Association Speaker -BOCES (schools) and LI Speaker's Association ~40 colonies(honey) >18 years experience on Long Island Phone:(631)567-1936 FAX:(631)262-8053 mail: 1260 Walnut Avenue, Bohemia, NY 11716-2176 web page: http://www.tianca.com/tianca2.html email home: raymondj@cleanweb.net email office: lackeyr@hazeltine.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:05:13 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: William Morong Subject: Re: Queen Rearing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Allen wrote: >* The bees must be of a sort that will start cells > readily and maintain them and >* There must be lots of young bees Allen's points are all excellent, but the two cited were a turning point for me. Early on, under good conditions, trying to get some nucs and splits of what turned out to be good bees to thrive was so discouraging I almost despaired of succeeding with bees. Later this operation became easy despite worse conditions. The difference was some prolific bees so poor at making honey that I almost requeened them before realizing their value as nurses. They cling so tenaciously to their brood that inspection is difficult. Putting a frame with young larvae from desired stock in the midst of a few frames of brood of such bees, eliminating their own queen cells, and doing everything that Allen stated, makes nice queens. Bill Morong ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:47:44 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Musashi Subject: Re: electronic hives I have a cousin who has an electrical engineering Ph.D. degree and works in research and design of signal processing equipment for a major computer/ semiconductor company. I forwarded him some of the posts from Rex Boys about the Apidictor and here was his response: "This concept is fascinating and could be accomplished quite easily. I think the way to do it would be to fit the device to the hive and calibrate it on normal activity. (Of course, the calibration would be off if the bees were preparing to swarm when the device was first installed.) Then the sensor could look for activity that was significantly outside the norm. I think a simple semiconductor-based system could be developed to do this rather inexpensively. However, no one will ever go to the trouble unless there is a rather large market. Of course, the business people would want to know how many hives there are in the world, and how many of them would be likely to insert such a device at what cost points. Right now, using the parts that are currently available it might take about $10 or so to build a device like this. But $1 or $2 (maybe less) is probably achievable with some development effort. Of course, it would need to be studied carefully to say for sure." I thought these comments would be of interest to this list. It seems to me like this might be something worth pursuing. And I was just thinking that his company might be willing to pick this up as a project if there is an incentive to do so. Any thoughts? Layne Westover College Station, Texas, USA ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:57:09 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: Re: electronic hives In-Reply-To: <200001121322.IAA07632@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:29 AM 1/12/00 -0500, you wrote: Raymond, if you can produce a unit with all of the devices that you mentioned for $50, let's do it. Part of this may be semantics. My $500 unit would be a monitoring hive in a yard with the central communications, etc. that you suggested would be a standalone to support the distributed hive. If we break it out to a simple hive monitor communicating with a central weather/communications uplink, then your estimate is much closer to reality. Also, my system price includes a stand, etc. Unless you have some really cut rate supplier, the box itself adds a few dollars. And I haven't found a really cheap satellite or land-based communications system that won't add significant dollars per month. As per prices, they do keep dropping and the capability keeps increasing rapidly. A monitoring hive at $500 would not be cost effective for a hobbiest (and maybe not even the $50 hive) or for a commercial beekeeper in a densely populated state (where the number of hives in a commercial operation and their distribution - miles apart- may be small)by comparison to commercial beekeeping in some other states. However, there is another cost facter that large operations have to consider - labor and mileage. Our smallest operations have 2500 to 3000 hives, often in two states at the same time, such as CA and WA, WA and MT, MT and the Dakotas. Bee operations in MT often are spread over 100 or more even several hundred miles. I know of one operation that extends from the central part of eastern MT deep into N. Dakota. At this point in time, the hives are tended on a rotational schedule. The ones to do today are usually the next in the list. Sometimes, based on prior history, the beekeeper will now that the bees in a specific area will have to be checked out-of-order because the nectar flow tends to start earlier there - or the area may tend to be marginal in food resources at critical times. More than once, our guys have grumbled that in the race between managing bees, time, weather, equipment they went to one end of the operation when it was the other that needed tending. In our part of the world 50 and sometimes 100 hive yards are common. Imagine the cost of either starving out one or more yards, or arriving some days after the nectar flow has started. Multiply the loss by multiple hives, and maybe a monitor hive at a key yard in the area would pay for itself. Granted, a cheap monitor under every hive would be great, but 1 in a group of yards 100 miles from home base might be very useful. Comments? And if you can really produce a $50 monitor that counts bees, weighs hives, communicates etc. - let me know and we will RUN to our sponsors. Cheers Jerry > >I know that you have had it for years and I have really enjoyed reading >about it but your goal of $500 per unit is too high. >I have designed boards with a simple computer processor/controller where the >sell price was under $50. We had material costs of under $20 > >It is not easy migrating something from a lab curiosity to a consumer item. Jerry J. Bromenshenk, Ph.D. Director, DOE/EPSCoR & Montana Organization for Research in Energy The University of Montana-Missoula Missoula, MT 59812-1002 E-Mail: jjbmail@selway.umt.edu Tel: 406-243-5648 Fax: 406-243-4184 http://www.umt.edu/biology/more http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:15:51 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Nucs and queens MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Scott wonders if a four frame nuc can do well producing its own queen. Yes, a four frame nuc will do very well, during the swarming season! Be certain each nuc has one frame of capped honey and another of pollen. The pollen can be either underneath capped honey or fresh, from current year collection. One of the other frames should be capped larvae, hopefully just emerging, and the other should be mostly eggs and 1-3 day-old larvae. If possible, feed the nuc 1:1 sugar water. I you can't get an in-hive feeder into the nuc, consider leaving out the frame of capped honey (sugar water is better than honey at this stage). The queen cells will benefit tremendously if you can feed pollen. Take a cup of pollen, add enough 1:1 sugar water to make a firm patty. Smooth the patty down until it is the thickness of pizza dough. Place it on a piece of wax paper on top of the frames and place the cover back on. If you happen to find a hive getting ready to swarm, wait until the cells are capped (check daily). The day they are capped, set up your nucs as outlined in the first paragraph. The next day carefully cut out the queen cells (with a knife). Do not tip the cells over or lay them on their sides. With your thumb, make an indentation in a center frame of the nuc, and push the base of the queen cell into it. Put the top back on the nuc and close all entrances for 48 hours. (That assumes the nucs are not in direct sun, or have plenty of cross ventilation with the entrances closed. If either is not true, leave the entrances open.) Usually the nuc will readily accept the queen cell, and by using one you get a laying queen 10 days sooner than otherwise. No less than 14 days after you insert the queen cell, check for eggs. If no eggs appear by day 20, the bees did not accept the queen cell or the queen did not return from mating. Expect about 15% of your nucs to not have a laying queen, and plan the number of nucs accordingly. Best of luck, Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. www.rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:52:28 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: Nucs and queens MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 00-01-12 12:14:23 EST, you write: << Usually the nuc will readily accept the queen cell, and by using one you get a laying queen 10 days sooner than otherwise. No less than 14 days after you insert the queen cell, check for eggs. If no eggs appear by day 20, the bees did not accept the queen cell or the queen did not return from mating. Expect about 15% of your nucs to not have a laying queen, and plan the number of nucs accordingly. >> I've made thousands of nucs, pretty much by Lloyd's technique, and it's a good one. I don't fuss quite as much as Lloyd, because I don't cut off cells, unless there are three or more on a frame. I just use the frames with cells, being careful not to handle them rough, or tip them over. I also do not close entrances. I use 5 frame boxes mostly, so this gives a little more space. But I still would generally give a frame of brood with eggs about the 20th day. If there is no evidence of a queen, I'll give them another cell. But the eggs give them a chance, if the queen is a dingaling, and the extra brood also jump starts the nuc. Dave Green http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:57:29 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Beware Tracheal Mites in Mating Nucs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Most of us are getting pretty blasé about tracheal mites, since resistance has been building in the bee populations, and in most areas of North America, TM hasn't been causing huge losses lately. HOWEVER: Something of note that I leaned at the AHPA conference was that queen mating nucs with TM result in queens with TM. Queens with TM don't las6t long. Someone -- and I can't remember who -- mentioned doing a sampling of queens reared in nucs where TM levels that were significant, and observed that virtually all the queens from the infested nucs were infested with tracheal mites. The reason is simple: when the queen emerges in a mating nuc, she is often the only bee in the hive anywhere near the preferred age for tracheal mites to enter! Although TM may not be a concern in production hives, in queen rearing the levels MUST be well controlled. FWIW. allen ----- See if your questions have been answered in over a decade of discussions. BEE-L archives & more: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Bee-l.htm Search sci.agriculture.beekeeping at http://www.deja.com/ or visit http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee to access both on the same page. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:24:18 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Bartlett Subject: Bee Meeting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I had an interesting and somewhat amusing experience yesterday evening. = I was going to give lecture on "Bees and the Computer". I had my = thoughts and outline together. I had also printed out several posts = from Bee-L. I wanted to show people how much information you could find = on the internet and especially the Bee-L listserv. When I arrived at the meeting place I found that there were seven Amish = men there. That was about 1/4 of the attendees. I knew that they had = almost no interest in the internet or computers. So I looked over the = posts that I had from Bee-L and put together enough information to have = a lecture and I did work a little about computers into it too. I would like to say thanks to all those whose posts I used. Just assume = that it was yours. Bill Bartlett Association of Southern Maryland Beekeepers - USA ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:05:18 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Becky or Al S Boehm Subject: mites in pollen? Hello all, I have obtained plans to build a pollen collector. Then the question came up as to the possibility of mite collection along with the pollen as it appears that a mechanical means of knocking off the pollen is used. Will the screens remove mites into the pollen? Has anyone experience with this? Thanks in advance. Al Boehm Columbus North Carolina ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:17:29 -0500 Reply-To: info@beeworks.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: David Eyre Subject: Re: Nucs and queens In-Reply-To: <200001121715.MAA15654@listserv.albany.edu> On 12 Jan 00, at 12:15, Lloyd Spear wrote: > Usually the nuc will readily accept the queen cell, and by using one you > get a laying queen 10 days sooner than otherwise. No less than 14 days > after you insert the queen cell, check for eggs. If no eggs appear by day > 20, the bees did not accept the queen cell or the queen did not return > from mating. Expect about 15% of your nucs to not have a laying queen, and > plan the number of nucs accordingly. Strange how some old wives tales persist. We open our raising nucs 24 hours after the cell is due to emerge to check make sure she emerged properly, without problems. If you wait 14 days that nuc will be so close to laying workers as to be almost useless, assuming the cell failed, 20 days and we plan to shake out and start again. I for one wouldn't waste time re-celling it. As to 15%, if we lost that amount we would be looking to find out what went wrong, far too high in my opinion. ***************************************** The Bee Works, 5 Edith Drive, R R # 2. Orillia, Ontario, Canada.L3V 6H2. Phone (705)326 7171 Fax (705)325 3461 David Eyre, e-mail http://www.beeworks.com **************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 01:24:57 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: awcannon Subject: Re: Queen Rearing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Moser To: Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 12:08 AM Subject: Queen Rearing . Will a 4 frame > nuc create a good queen, or are they just too small and weak to do the job? > I want to increase this year, but dont want to weaken any hive too much, and > would prefer to start the hives from nucs. > > Thanks all! > Scott if nucs are given a queen cell or anew queen they will rear it ok but dont expect a good queen to be reared from scratch from a small nuc. a w cannon > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:11:16 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mike Subject: Bee Management Symposium MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >From the Mobile Register (Alabama, USA) A symposium on honey bee management will be held February 12 at Auburn = University. The symposium will be in the Lowder Business Building, 415 W. = Magnolia Ave. Registration, which will cost $15, will begin at 8 a.m. = and the symposium will start at 8:45 a.m. For more information, write Sandra Pouncey, Department of = Entomology and Plant Pathology, 301 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL = 36849-5615 or call (334) 844-2551. Mike Stoops >From the thriving metropolis of Excel, Alabama, USA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:14:46 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jean-Francois Lariviere Subject: Re: mites in pollen? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit << Will the screens remove mites into the pollen? Has anyone experience with this?>> It's true. Mites will fall into the pollen collection tray - it's unavoidable. Last summer, as I was cleaning my pollen trap from the various bee body parts that had fallen, I discovered my hive had a contamination of Varroa. By the way, these mites were dead. Don't be alarmed, it isn't unusual to find live, crawling insects like black ants trying to co-exist in this area, too. So, there are 2 ways to view this - (1) it's an early warning system of a mite problem and (2) you can move the trap to another hive that may be mite-free. Of course, some may add a third item, the benefit of added protein into the mix of pollen :) Bee Healthy, Jean-Francois Lariviere President, BeeHealthy Farms 242 W. 104th St. Suite 1EF NY NY 10025 212-662-4244 (tel & fax) http://www.BeeHealthyFarms.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:21:24 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lackey, Raymond" Subject: electronic hives MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Musashi wrote: "Right now, using the parts that are currently available it might take about $10 or so to build a device like this. But $1 or $2 (maybe less) is probably achievable with some development effort. Of course, it would need to be studied carefully to say for sure." I thought these comments would be of interest to this list. It seems to me like this might be something worth pursuing. And I was just thinking that his company might be willing to pick this up as a project if there is an incentive to do so. Any thoughts?" The development of an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) implied for the lower cost requires over $1 million to develop, after the basic research like Jerry B. is doing to determine what it should do. Then the price is a function of complexity and quantity per year. I do not believe that the market is there today to get to that point. Jerry J Bromenshenk wrote: "And I haven't found a really cheap satellite or land-based communications system that won't add significant dollars per month." Back to the almighty dollar - What are you offering them? How are they going to increase their revenue from you. You can't pay their average service rates and be feasible, but, if you look at their load level, their equipment sits there at night doing nothing except eating power in case a message occurs. Uses of wireless networks are still evolving. Get in there and manipulate the gene pool. Look for a deal where you only access at night. My paradigm is that the base office computer pages each yard in turn starting at midnight, or your area's dead time, and gathers the report to be on the manager's desk at 5 am. Start of nectar flows would be tracked and planned for while emergencies could be identified and bumped in priority. Even here on Long Island, the Locust bloom stretches over a 2 to 4 week start time from the city out. I've often thought that trailers of bees moved to follow the peak flow could make 4 times more of this desired honey. Now I sell all of my production at over $4 per pound from a self serve stand on my front porch, so a network of monitor hives might be useful for me, if I could increase production and still maintain price. Proof of the start time of a pesticide kill to correlate with an application for a reimbursement of losses may be the most economical use of such monitoring because you can then force the violator to cover the costs of evidence! Raymond J. Lackey Sweet Pines Apiary email office: lackeyr@hazeltine.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:53:18 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Pollen Trap MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Al mentions a pollen collector and wonders if mites might get mixed in with the pollen. I presume Al is considering what is termed a "pollen trap", which removes a portion of the pollen from bees, and not a device that would collect pollen directly from flowers. Pollen traps work by "stripping" some of the pollen from the baskets on the legs of incoming bees. They generally do this by forcing the bees to walk through a 5-mesh screen in order to get to the brood nest. (Bees can pass through a 6-mesh screen, so a 5-mesh does not remove all the pollen, leaving plenty for the bees to use for brood production.) The stripped pollen then falls into a collection area, generally a drawer with 14 mesh screen on the bottom. I have never heard of mites being stripped along with the pollen. I kind of doubt that they are, as they tend to place themselves in areas not readily accessible, and hold on tight to feed. However, most bottom-mount pollen traps (the best kind) have a stripper screen that is open to the brood nest. This means that natural mite fall (several hundred a day in a heavily infested hive) will end up in the pollen tray! Worse yet, they are visible (barely) and travel reasonably fast! However, freezing is thought to kill them. Commercial pollen producers freeze their pollen before cleaning and presume that the mites are removed during the cleaning process. The 2000 catalogs for all US bee supply dealers will feature the new Sundance(tm) pollen trap introduced at Apimondia '99. This bottom mounted trap is designed so that brood nest debris (including mites) do not fall into the pollen collection area. Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. www.rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:28:16 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Pollen Trap In-Reply-To: <200001131558.KAA23063@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Bees can pass through a 6-mesh screen As much as I hate to disagree with my esteemed colleague, Lloyd, I believe that bees cannot get through 6 mesh hardware cloth. That is why we use it folded as entrance blocks sometimes for moving a hive and for covering our sticky boards to prevent the bees from removing the mites that collect there. allen ----- See if your questions have been answered in over a decade of discussions. BEE-L archives & more: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Bee-l.htm Search sci.agriculture.beekeeping at http://www.deja.com/ or visit http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee to access both on the same page. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:43:12 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Screen sizes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For those few who may be interested, it is entirely possible that both Allen and I are right...perhaps even likely, given the personalities. Our shorthand of "5-mesh", "6-mesh", etc. refers, of course, to the numbers of squares to an inch (apologies to all those using the more advanced metric system). However, there is another ingredient that also affects the size of the opening. That is, the size of the wire. My 6-mesh screen uses wire with a diameter of .020". Bees do go through it. I believe a thicker wire size might still produce six openings to the inch, and have a smaller opening size that bees cannot go through. I formerly used six mesh as a pollen stripper, but believe that so little pollen got through that brood production suffered. My screen directly above the pollen collection drawer is make of 7 mesh, which the bees definitely cannot go through. Allen, why do you use six mesh for the reasons mentioned? Eight mesh is less expensive, and much more readily available. What are the rest of us missing to justify use of six mesh? Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. www.rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:26:33 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Screen sizes In-Reply-To: <200001131747.MAA26933@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > My 6-mesh screen uses wire with a diameter of .020". Bees do go through it. Well, I'm not certain that bees *cannot* go through it. I do know that they do not like to go through it and I have never seen any do so. I know that angry bees can get through the little grommets in some bee helmets when inspired, so maybe the bees CAN get through my mesh but are not motivated enough. Dunno. I used to use 5-mesh screen for queen excluders when I ran 100 Farrar hives some 25 years ago or more. Worked well. FWIW, Honeywood Bee Supplies in Saskatchewan sells bound 5-mesh excluders. > Allen, why do you use six mesh for the reasons mentioned? I had a lot on hand from some project years back. It worked fine for the purposes stated, so I went and bought some more. As with so many things, there is no reason, I've just always done it that way. Now, doggone it, you are making me think! Somewhat off topic, but related to this: Jerry B. mentioned some time back that he had pollen scrapers that worked well in Montana, but when he took the hives, pollen scrapers and all, to Maryland, suddenly the bees could not get through the same holes they had gone through days previously. No explanation -- although we have speculated. I brought this up at a table of bee scientists the other day, and I think they all agreed that larger cells and new comb do not necessarily produce larger bees, so that explanation is out. Another thought was that the coastal humidity changed the chitinous shell somewhat. I have another insight: maybe the early bees were not well nourished and a bit stunted, but a later generation that took over at about the time Jerry noticed were better fed and larger. allen ----- See if your questions have been answered in over a decade of discussions. BEE-L archives & more: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Bee-l.htm Search sci.agriculture.beekeeping at http://www.deja.com/ or visit http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee to access both on the same page. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 14:31:07 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Lab, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Screen sizes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick wrote: > >>>>>>> > they all agreed that larger cells and new comb do not > necessarily produce larger bees, so that explanation is out. Another thought > was that the coastal humidity changed the chitinous shell somewhat. I have > another insight: maybe the early bees were not well nourished and a bit stunted, > but a later generation that took over at about the time Jerry noticed were > better fed and larger. "Our" bees are smaller than in the past in the southwestern U.S. The desert-adapted feral bees I collected from 1987-1993 were not necessarily small; in fact, some were quite large ( around 9.22 mm forewing length). We have virtually no large bees here now. It would seem reasonable to expect different results with pollen traps. I have tried unsuccessfully for 3 years to interest anybody in testing different screen or hole sizes for our evolving "commercial" bee. Queen excluders need a fresh look, also. To date all I have accumulated are comments such as "we'll have to do that sometime". If you search the archives, you will find I have beaten this horse before, and it still won't run. ----------------------------------------------------------- John F. Edwards Carl Hayden Bee Research Center 2000 E. Allen Road Tucson, Arizona 85719 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:16:45 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mark Hayward Subject: Re: Screen sizes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The topic of screen sizes and particularly queen excluder spacing is something I have been pondering lately. You see I currently have a two story hive with queen excluder between the two boxes. I was about to rob the honey super but realised that there was brood (eggs right through to capped) in the lower portion of the honey frames. As I periodically lift brood to reduce congestion in the brood chamber I thought perhaps I had inadvertently lifted the queen. Thinking that I must have done so I went through the top box TWICE looking for the queen to no avail. Despite being a strong, populous hive, I could not see her. Inspection of the bottom box quickly revelaed my marked queen was still live and well in the bottom box which also contained plenty of brood at all stages of development. Having lifted brood over a week prior, I knew that the eggs and young larvae in the upper box were younger than a week old and that there must be a queen up there.....so I went through the box a third time. By now, on a hot Queensland day, I had had enough of this hive so put it back together knowing that the marked queen was under the excluder in the brood chamber. I resolved to check again and sort it out the following week. The next weekend - same deal--- still eggs and young larvae in the top box, but my marked queen was in the bottom brood box. Search of top box (twice again) revealed no sign of a queen. I then thought that the integrity of my excluder must have been compromised so have substituted it for a new one and will check again this coming weekend to see if the same problem continues. I guess the purpose of these ramblings is to seek opinions as to what is going on. MUST I have a queen in the top box or will a queen traverse through the excluder in to the top box if she desires extra room to lay? I look forward to comments Regards Mark Hayward Brisbane Queenslanmd ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 06:26:33 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dennis Crutchfield Subject: chicory Hello beekeepers, I have a question, I hope you can answer. I know of around 30 acres of chicory growing. Will this flower make good honey? thanks preacher ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 21:11:26 PST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: T & M Weatherhead Subject: Re: Screen sizes In-Reply-To: <200001132320.SAA09964@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mike Hayward wrote > I then thought that the integrity of my excluder must have been compromised so > have substituted it for a new one and will check again this coming weekend to > see if the same problem continues. I guess the purpose of these ramblings is > to > seek opinions as to what is going on. MUST I have a queen in the top box or > will a queen traverse through the excluder in to the top box if she desires > extra room to lay? Not nesessarily. Check this weekend to see if the brood is in fact drone brood. If so, check you recent editions of the Australasian Beekeepere where you will see an ad for researchers in Sydney after drone brood from above the excluder. This is not drone brood that you have brought up yourself. I had this a few years back and submitted the drone brood to the University researchers to examine. What it is is that workers above the excluder actually lay drones. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:34:31 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Screen sizes In-Reply-To: <200001132154.QAA06295@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > "Our" bees are smaller than in the past in the southwestern > U.S. The desert-adapted feral bees I collected from 1987-1993 > were not necessarily small; in fact, some were quite large > ( around 9.22 mm forewing length). We have virtually no large > bees here now. It would seem reasonable to expect different > results with pollen traps. I have been wondering about excluders for some time now, and measured a variety of them I have accumulated, ones that were manufactured at various times over the past 60 years or so. The results are on my web site referenced in my last post on this topic several months back (Item #29613 (24 Oct 1999 21:41) - Excluder Variability). It seems to me, from my measurements, that someone just made an excluder that worked for him back 50 years ago or more, and everyone else just copied it because they are all pretty much the same in the width of the slits, although the direction and thickness of the wires vary. For some bees, getting through is a breeze, for others it must be a crunch. One of the bee scientists I was visiting with the other day in San Diego mentioned that queens had been seen with dents in the thorax, and the assumption was that it was from her forcing her way through an excluder. Others agreed. I personally have used 5 mesh hardware cloth as an excluder with good success. I think each hole in such screen is quite a bit wider than the .062 gaps that were typical in the excluders I measured. Taking an inch (1.000") and dividing it into 5 gives 5 x 0.200", including the wire on one side of the square. Since 0.200-0.062 = 0.138" and the wire is between 0.020 and 0.30 depending on the maker -- we have a hole that is 0.138-0.025(the average wire size)=0.113" square in five mesh hardware cloth unless I measured or reckoned wrong. When we compare that to the 0.062 spacing in excluders, we see it is almost double, but it works. Is it because of the shape (square) of the hole compared to the slit in an excluder? Does anyone have a zinc excluder on hand to measure? Since a zinc excluder is very thin, I should think the slit in it should be a little different than the one in a wire excluder which has more thickness. Anyhow, I wandered around here to check my numbers before posting, but we can't find the dial callipers and, besides, the excluders are all 1/4 mile away in a shed out in the cold. Maybe some will check my numbers and confirm my observations? allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:50:32 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lackey, Raymond" Subject: small growers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Yesterday, I attended a conference for growers where our state Apiary Extension agent made a presentation. It was a good presentation on why bees are beneficial for fruit production and how to evaluate colony strength but I am afraid that it focused on standard populations meaningful for large growers. It used to be that there were abundant honeybees in a most areas so that the small grower did not have to worry about pollination. He got it free from the wild bees of the area. His blocks of crops to be pollinated were small and staggered. The large grower with tens of acres of a single product knew that he had to get the pollinators brought in or there would be no crop. I believe that was the condition of McGregor's work and the basis for the colony numbers. What if there are only five acres of a single bloom crop such as apples or pears? Now they are recommending an increase of the number of colonies for the large grower because the bees are less able to perform the function due to mite stress. What about the small grower? Does he use the same numbers or does he actually have to go higher? There are now no wild honeybees in the area. The reason for my question is the surrounding pasture. The small growers here grow fruit and vegetables for roadside sale. Early in the spring, the vegetable fields are weeds from the last year, many of them blooming. Very near by, there is vacant land, hedge rows from an earlier era, and light woods. There is often abundant pasture within half or even a quarter of a mile. These plants may be very enticing pasture. Has there been work in this area? One time I was told that the average grower can get by without bees, that only about one year out of seven is the weather such that he needs to so flood his orchard that he gets sufficient pollination even in the lousy weather. Is that still the case since the mites have decimated the wild bees? Raymond J. Lackey Sweet Pines Apiary email office: lackeyr@hazeltine.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:24:14 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Rex Boys Subject: A bit about the apidictor plus something different MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Having downloaded the last 32 postings on the subject of the apidictor, = I hope within the next few days to contribute a significant amount of = answers and explanation. In the meantime, here are some thoughts on a = completely different subject. Have you ever wondered how the queen controls her egg laying to ensure = that worker cells get fertilised ones and drone cells get unfertilised = ones? At a lecture I attended some years ago, the speaker suggested = that she uses her antennae as a pair of callipers to measure the = internal cell diameter when she makes her preliminary inspection but I = think this would be a bit cumbersome and would lead to many more = mistakes. Personally I am certain that after all these centuries the process has = been automated and if the cell is a tight fit on her abdomen, it turns = on the semen tap and if it is the loose fit of a drone cell, the tap = remains off. This would be the most logical and reliable method. "Hold on a moment", I hear you say, " How does she manage to get a = fertilised egg into the much wider queen cell?" Well, I have the = perfect answer to that and it involves those little things some people = call queen cups and others call play cells. All through the season you can see these little chaps. Built sideways = on, they look as though the bees started to build a queen cell and then = changed their mind by turning the end in to make a worker size entrance. = Because they are always there, they get to be part of the scenery and = you stop noticing them but I suggest you ignore them at your peril = because they are the real thing. Being prudent little creatures, the bees like to keep a stock of queen = cells ready for use at short notice. What I think they do is to start = building a queen cell and when it is the length of the queen's abdomen, = they turn it in to provide a worker size entrance. This ensures that = when they want to raise a new queen the old girl backs in and = automatically lays a fertilised egg. Once she has done this, they can open out the end and continue building = but I do not think they do this immediately; they wait 3 days until the = larva has hatched. Murphy's law comes into play here because this will = be the day the beekeeper came round to inspect, has seen nothing unusual = and the moment he has put the roof on, the masons go in and start = reshaping the cell. Five days later, the cell gets sealed and the swarm = is off, much to the consternation of the beekeeper. =20 When I first published this idea in British Bee Journal several years = ago, the responses could be counted on the nails of one finger so I hope = you lot can do a bit better. Is it a good theory or does anyone regard = it as untenable? Words like 'obviously right', 'well thought out' and = 'brilliant' would be most welcome but do not feel shy about 'nonsense' = and 'rubbish' if you think they are justified. Best Wishes, Rex Boys ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:44:41 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Hamilton Subject: Re: A bit about the apidictor plus something different MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Rex I had always read that the queen uses her forelegs to measure the cells for drone/worker. I also have seen studies that the egg is moved into the queen cell, not laid there. In emergency queen cell rearing workers will tear apart adjacent cells and enlarge an existing cell to form the queen cell. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:02:34 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Musashi Subject: Re: A bit about the apidictor plus something different Rex Boys talks about a theory of how a queen determines whether an egg will be fertilized or not. His observation is that it appears to be determined by the diameter of the entrance to the cell--narrow cells resulting in fertilization and wide cell not triggering fertilization. I have a couple of thoughts with regard to this theory. First, it's logical and makes good sense that it could happen this way. I like it. My next thought was "how could the validity of the theory be determined scientifically, at least empirically?" I imagined in my mind that it could take hours and hours of careful observation of a queen's egg laying to determine whether the entrance to queen cells was always constricted to worker size at the time the queen laid in them. If this is a true phenomenon, it ought to be possible to observe it consistently. Then the third thought came to mind: could laying a fertilized egg in a queen cup have something to do with the orientation of the cup (vertical) rather than the size of the cup, and do queens "automatically" lay fertilized eggs when laying "vertically"? If the queen does use her front legs a calipers to determine whether to fertilize an egg or not, then there could be 3 different sizes that trigger this. The smallest would be worker, the next would be drone, and the largest would be the queen cup. Again, someone should be able to determine it by painstaking work and careful observation. All that said, I like Rex's theory. It makes good sense and is satisfying. Now who will determine whether or not it is true, and how will they do it? Layne Westover College Station, Texas ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:09:49 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: Nucs for Pollination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anyone have experience using 5 frame nucs for pollination of home gardens/a couple fruit trees? I get many requests for bees and would not mid the lifting if I could keep things down to 50 lbs or less. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:45:45 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: Nucs for Pollination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I seem to recall a mention of something like this by Dr. Tew in Bee Culture. I know that there are five frame medium nucs available (I like to use them) so you could build a two story nuc with a deep and a medium, use some of that mesh that was mentioned in other posts as an excluder and maybe get a little honey out of the deal as well. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:24:17 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Carmenie Stemmler Subject: Alfalfa Pollination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all, Here is a question I hope someone can give me help on. A neighbor planted 5 acres of GRIM alfalfa, one of the 5 orginal varieties of alfalfa. He wants to take the seed of this year, and so needs something to pollinate it. Will honey bees to the job, and if so how many hives? Some say that cutter bees are needed on todays varieties of alfalfa, because honey bees have been so bred that the honey bee cannot get its tongue in the flower. Is this true? And where can they be obtained? I appreciate any help you can give me on this subject. Regards, Carmenie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:27:33 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: RFC822 error: Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored. From: "Keith B. Forsyth" Subject: Re: chicory MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi: This reference may be of some help to you,it is from "Plants for Beekeeping in Canada and the northern USA, by Jane Ramsay, published 1987 by IBRA p.43 : "Cichorium intybus L. common chicory, blue daisy, blue sailors, wild succory... Value for honey: HP3 (honey potential=51-100kg/ha); plants may close up in the afternoons and so yields N in the mornings only; surplus H has been obtained where this is grown on a field scale for roots or seeds (e.g.. England and Michigan); one of the most attractive plants to bees. Honey: is yellowish-green in colour; flavour is pleasant and has a coffee-chicory taste Notes: cultivated as a crop for roots or green fodder in some countries, but is a noxious weed in some provinces of Canada." Frank C. Pellett, American Honey Plants ,(1977, Dadant & Sons) has a similar write-up, p. 105. Keith ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:39:21 -0700 Reply-To: darn@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: darn@FREENET.EDMONTON.AB.CA Subject: Re: Screen sizes In-Reply-To: <200001141339.IAA24567@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Allen Dick wrote: ... Since 0.200-0.062 = 0.138" ... I don't think you want to subtract the .062. I believe what you have is: space + wire =.200 space + .025 =.200 space =.175 I measured one of my commercial wire excluders ( my garage is only 50' away) and get a range of .168 - .171 for the spaces. The average is .168, a little closer than the 5 mesh screen. This is probably made up for by the great length between cross wires of the regular excluder. Best regards, Donald Aitken Edmonton Alberta Canada ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:26:49 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Lab, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Screen sizes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark Hayward wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MUST I have a queen in the top box Probably not, but can't be ruled out. > or > will a queen traverse through the excluder in to the top box if she desires > extra room to lay? Probably, but twice or more and a return would surprise me. ----------------- John F. Edwards Biological Lab. Technician Carl Hayden Bee Research Center Tucson, Arizona 85719 http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/home/edwards/index.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:42:49 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Thom Bradley Subject: Re: Alfalfa Pollination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Carmenie Stemmler wrote: > A neighbor planted 5 acres of GRIM alfalfa, one of the > 5 orginal varieties of alfalfa. He wants to take the > seed of this year, and so needs something to pollinate > it. > > Will honey bees to the job, and if so how many hives? > > Carmenie Carmenie, Honeybees will do the job of pollinating alfalfa however, they trick with pollinating alfalfa is to saturate the filed with bees. The pollination mechanism with alfalfa is a trigger on the flower that will fall and smack the back of the insect, spreading the pollen. There is some evidence that honeybees MAY learn to avoid getting smacked and reduce their effectiveness. My general recommendation would be to place at least 2 colonies of standard (Dave Green standard) pollination hive / acre. Add 1 colony for having it be a small acreage (if there are other attractive plants nearby or lack water, shade or lacks in optimum conditions in any other way). So, sight unseen, my recommendation will be 11 colonies to ensure good seed viability. Minimum. I have a feeling I am about to be called off to the races but, then again I don't think we discuss pollination enough. Thom Bradley Thom's Honeybees Chesapeake, VA Tidewater Beekeeper's Association http://groups.hamptonroads.com/beekeepers/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:42:27 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Thom Bradley Subject: Re: Nucs for Pollination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Instead of using NUC's use a single deep and a super with an excluder. Keep your eye on them and pull a frame of brood if they start to get too populace. Any smaller than that and you can't get enough field bees to effectively pollinate. Use 5-8 frames of bees. If there are 8 frames, keep an eye and be on the alert for swarming behavior if they expand. New queens will help suppress the swarming. If the pollen source is good, the queen will begin laying like gangbusters and fillup the single deep. Keep your eye on them and pull a frame of brood if they start to get too populace. You can further reduce weight if you move the super separate. Just add it empty before the move and replace it with an empty one just before the removal. Remember, they don't have to be light all the time, just when you need to move them. You can pull deeps of honey and replace with empty just before the move. Make sure they get food once they are in place. Thom Bradley Thom's Honeybees Chesapeake, VA BeeCrofter@AOL.COM wrote: > > Anyone have experience using 5 frame nucs for pollination of home gardens/a > couple fruit trees? > I get many requests for bees and would not mid the lifting if I could keep > things down to 50 lbs or less. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:51:28 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Alfalfa Pollination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If you go to www.airoot.com and select bee culture when you get there look in the pollination handbook. In it is a whole section on alfalfa. The below link may get you there in one trip. http://bee.airoot.com/beeculture/book/chap_1.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:41:08 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Maximum Brood Area Comments: cc: "sci.ag.bee" , kflottum@airoot.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit While in San Diego, I bought Bee Culture's pollination video "The Honey Bee -- A growers Guide". It's a great video, but one thing bothered me: the part about brood area. Frankly, I'd be afraid to show it to a grower -- and that was my intent in buying it. I was very pleased to see that they recommended actually measuring brood area by holding a grid over the comb surface and estimating an area on each side in 1/4ths or 1/10ths of a frame of brood. They did not specify what to conclude if one side was 80% brood and the back side was all honey. Is that an 80% frame or a 40% frame. I assumed that would bee 40% of a frame of brood. FWIW, I was interested to note that my estimate in each case -- made subjectively by looking at each example and playing along before they announced their measurement -- was always more generous than their result. They also showed how to estimate the number of bees in terms of frames of bees. I found that pretty subjective. What puzzles me is that they stated -- after carefully explaining the measurement method -- was that a hive could and should be expected to have from 6 to 12 (Yup, TWELVE) full frames of brood when going to pollination. In my personal real-life experience, going through thousand of my hives frame by frame in spring and summer, and thousands of other peoples' hives in spring as a bee inspector, I can only recall seeing, *at most*, 10 to 16 frames WITH brood on both sides -- not twelve frames OF solid brood (both sides) -- in *any* normal single queen hive. The hives that had the twelve frames *with* brood actually would have areas of more like 8 or 9 frames of solid brood (each with two sides) when measured, and allowance made for the empty cells or cells of honey and pollen. As I have stated here before, when breaking good doubles down to singles for Ross Rounds (tm) production -- and we did this a lot (thousands of times) -- we would remove all the brood from the two boxes and put it, and the bees, into singles, then take the honey frames away. When doing so in a yard of 30 hives, we usually got a few extra boxes of brood that we used for increase. Such splits consisted of odd frames with patches of brood from the sides of the original brood nests and we almost always found a few queen cells that could be used to make sure they had a queen, so by summer's end, they became strong spits. The point here, though is that out of 30 hives, we always got a TOTAL of about 35 singles. Some were 9 frame and some were 10 frame, so taking a simple average, we got 9.5 x 35 = 332.5 frames WITH brood. Most were pretty solid brood, but using the estimation method in the video, I would think that an observer should rate them about 80%. That gives us 80% x 332.5 = 226 full frames of brood total or 8.87 frames per hive. And -- these were REALLY GOOD hives. The conclusion I reach here is what I have always said: in our country the maximum brood area is eight to nine 100% FULL frames (2 sides@ 100% = one frame) of brood in good single hives at the peak of the season. I don't see how people get the 12 frames of brood mentioned in pollinating hives, unless they are counting *each* side of the frame as a frame of brood. The 6 frame number seems to me very reasonable for a pollinating hive, using my ways of counting, but I cannot see how hives could average 12 frames of brood. Especially when they are not yet at full strength and are being carried around in doubles as shown in the film. I am assuming that a frame of brood must cover BOTH sides 100% to be one frame of brood. Maybe I am not using the same standards as others? Maybe EACH side is counted as a frame of brood, so that a single frame with two sides solid with brood would actually be 2 frames of brood? I have kept bees for over 25 years, pollinate crops for a living, have been told that my hives were way stronger than anyone else's in the 1998 season, and yet I cannot understand this. Anyhow, let's assume I missed something out there in the hot sun year after year. Maybe I can't count or Old Timers is setting in. Let's do some simple math: The best queens I have heard of can lay 3000 eggs per day. That's what all the books say. In my experience, it is abnormal for them to do this continuously. They tend to shut down from time to time or cut back due to the environmental conditions, but let's go with the biggest number. Okay! 3000 eggs laid each day for 21 days (after that they hatch) is 63,000 eggs. There are about 3200 cells per side of a comb (I counted), i.e.. 6400 cells per comb. Now, 63,000/6400 is 9.8 FULL combs -- both sides, every cell -- I mean FULL combs. Maybe Dee gets a few more cells per comb and thus fewer combs, but I'm dealing with *my* bees here. How do we get twelve? I can only conclude that I must be counting assuming that one frame requires both sides to be 100% full of brood, and everyone else is counting each side as a frame of brood. This is the weakness in such a measurement. I know the scientists use square inches or a metric equivalent, rather than 'frames' of brood. This is much clearer and less subject to misunderstanding. What say ye all? allen ----- See if your questions have been answered in over a decade of discussions. BEE-L archives & more: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Bee-l.htm Search sci.agriculture.beekeeping at http://www.deja.com/ or visit http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee to access both on the same page.