From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Jan 14 07:40:08 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 HAA05032 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:40:05 -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 HAA00160 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:43:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101141243.HAA00160@listserv.albany.edu> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:42:59 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8d)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0009A" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Content-Length: 199247 Lines: 4119 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:45:19 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Susan L. Nielsen" Organization: Oregon VOS Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) In-Reply-To: <200008312344.TAA06567@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, James Kilty wrote: > >... then feral hives should not > >succumb to varroa pressure. > So > therefore many feral colonies should have survived if it were the *only* > factor. Since they didn't, it cannot be the only factor. Enlighten me > please. Not me. I didn't think it required an explicit statement. The evidence of the natural experiment suggests that feral hives, with smaller cell sizes, did succumb to Varroa infestation. In the absence of a controlled experiment, it is a strongly suggestive description of the situation. It would be wonderful of the solution were as simple as a new (old) cell size, but casual observations are not convincing in light of the disappearance of feral colonies of A. mellifera across Varroa blighted continents. It would take enlightening to demonstrate another reason for the coincidence. Susan -- Susan Nielsen, Shambles Workshops |"...Gently down the Beavercreek, OR, USA |stream..." snielsen@orednet.org | -- Anon. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:52:48 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dina and Don Hess Subject: Re: cell size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit albert cannon wrote: > Sorry i cant beleive that so called downsizing alters genetic structures > just like that. I was taught that you cant breed dogs without tails just > by cutting tails off and then breeding from the dogs. ... > also does the size of the foundation cell determine the size of the > Queen cells? What I could gather perusing some of the information at beesource.com, the use of larger cell size was successful in producing larger bees. Proposing that this size can be passed to offspring at first sounds like Lamarkian evolution (I think that's the term) where acquired traits are thought to be passed to the offspring. In the case of bees, this may be partially valid. Larger bees may be more likely to produce larger cells because of physical reasons rather than genetic direction; the larger cells subsequently would continue to support larger workers. This may include making larger queen cells as well. That could be why the work the Lusbys are doing would require gradual adjustment in foundation cell size -- workers grown on foundation with larger than "natural" cell size may have a difficult time drawing out comb that's significantly smaller than what they're built for. A small experiment I would find interesting, similar to something suggested in a recent post also, would be to take a start of bees grown on large foundation (the larger the better for the purposes of the experiment) and grow them in a top bar hive with frequent harvests of the brood comb while charting any change in cell size. Successive generations of workers should tend to shift comb cells to the natural size determined by whatever genetic and climactic factors may be involved. Maybe when I start beekeeping with a top bar hive I'll deliberately try to find a local beekeeper using relatively large celled foundation to get a start. :) The impression I got regarding the Lusbys' work was that much of the debate that refers to it addresses a different issue. The Lusbys seemed to be advocating return to "natural" cell-size for foundation in hives. Much of the debate I've seen on the list makes reference to 4.9mm cell-size. This would be the natural cell-size only for certain regions of the world. The direction that the debate has taken seems to be more of discussing whether "smaller is better" with regards to varroa control. I gather that feral hives tend to fall fairly readily to varroa which would seem to argue against the hypothesis that natural cell size confers significant protection (depending on how quickly bees will revert to natural cell size). If cell size is to be investigated to fight varroa it may need to be smaller than "natural" and thus could add its own stresses to the bees. Don Hess - a not-yet-neophyte beekeeper :) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:51:13 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Donovan Subject: Varroa size Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Greetings All, There has been a great deal of discussion about bee and cell size, and possible influences on Varroa. I've just measured the width of seven female Varroa - all I have on hand. I used a binocular microscope with a graduated scale in one eyepiece. The biggest mite is 1.72 mm across, three are 1.69 mm, one is 1.68 mm and the two smallest are 1.65 mm. The difference between the biggest and smallest is thus 0.07 mm, and this difference in width is obvious under the microscope. So with this much variation in just seven Varroa that are almost certainly all descended from just one incursion into New Zealand, how much size variation is there in long-established populations? Also, because Varroa mate in every generation, (about 3 weeks) could not natural selection operate much more quickly for changes in cell size than honey bees in which the sexes mate about once a year? Regards, Barry Donovan. New Zealand. DonovanB@Crop.cri.nz ________ CAUTION: The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential. If you read this message and you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of all or part of the contents is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. Any opinions or views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not represent those of their employer. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 19:10:09 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: genetic theory Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Peter Borst did the Ivy League some credit in writing: > Beekeepers gathered them into apiaries, which probably produced some unnatural overcrowding, which encourages disease ... > and for better or worse, we are responsible for their well being. I believe any scientist (or medico or vet) would agree fully. This is a solid, if slightly vague, basis for discussion. > It *is possible* for species to be changed into other species, as proven by the scientists currently at work. I will not comment on whether this is a good thing or not, but simply state that if humans can alter species by altering the genes, then the potential was there to begin with, and nature certainly *could* have used it. Many say so, but that's a mistake. Genetic modification (GM) generally imposes gene-insertions that *could not* occur in nature. Some of the processes used are drastically different from anything in nature; others are modified virus infections, reminiscent of natural processes but transposing genes between remote species (e.g. from jellyfish into sugar-cane or humans into cows) which do not normally exchange genes. > Whether evolution is a fact or a theory has become moot with the >arrival of genetic engineering. I think this remark is not central to the argument, but I want to mention that the facts gleaned from fossils, augmented recently by molecular details, very very strongly suggest that evolution has occurred. The body of evidence from which this deduction flows is so huge, so multi-faceted, and so coherent, that evolution is regarded as a fact by almost every scientist today. This has very little connection to the issue of GM. >I wonder how many would be in favor of genetically altering the honey bee to combat the varroa? This is the question I raised some months ago. You can safely assume some gene-manipulators are trying to get funding to 'improve' Apis spp by transgenic expts. It will be prudent to refrain from such unknown territory, while expanding conventional genetics & breeding of bees. > Obviously, Apis cerana has some form of defense that it uses against the varroa. Perhaps this could be transferred to Apis mellifera? The idea that any such trait is based on only one gene, or on some very small package of genes, is implausible. Furthermore, the methods available today to insert genes into Apis spp are extremely crude and unpredictable. Unforeseen pathogens could well result, and the probability of any benefit is tiny. I would urge that no such expts be permitted, at least until a very careful and public investigation had been completed into the proposed expts. As a dedicated egg-head I am pleased at the thoughts from Cornell. They are way ahead of the Lysenkoist speculations about cell-size. R - Robt Mann consultant ecologist P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:16:01 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mike Allsopp Organization: ARC PLANT PROTECTION Subject: Cell size & varroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Greetings all I have been following the deluge of messages on this subject with some interest. I was pretty determined not to comment beyond my earlier message (that in South Africa 4.9mm foundation does not seem to prevent varroa reproduction), but I have been tempted into another message. The way I see it, the first question to be asked is not "can European bees deal with 4.9mm foundation" but rather "does 4.9mm foundation make any difference in terms of varroa virulence". In South Africa we will not be pursuing this issue, as we already use (basically) 4.9mm foundation - but if I was in the USA and I wanted to see if there was anything in the story, I would think that the following would be reasonably appropriate. (1) Select two European genetic lines from queen producers (say NWC and Italian) and purchase 30 sister queens of each group. (2) For each line, set up 30 colonies: ten with 4.9mm, 10 with 5.7mm, and 10 with just wax strips to allow them to produce natural comb. {If you want to "retrogress" them, then you will need more groups (say 5.1mm, 5.3mm, 5.5mm) and more queens}. (3) Let them settle down for a couple of months, and then introduce 200 varroa (all from common source) into each colony. (4) Monitor mite population dynamics, mite reproduction in worker brood cells, and colony dynamics for 3 years, stirring occasionally. At the end of this you might know if foundation cell size has any noticeable effect on varroa reproduction - but you will certainly know what cell size your bees prefer (the natural comb), and I would be loathe to deviate from this. And of course this whole process with take years and cost many tens of thousands of dollars. But this (or probably something much more complicated) is the only way to safe & certain answers. As far as researchers not lining up to do this work: find the money and you will find the researchers. Or you could all work with AHB's which like small cells, which may or may not be the reason that they may or may not be able to deal with varroa. Lastly, I've had a couple of enquiries in the past few days for sources of 4.9mm wax foundation in South Africa - which I am not going to answer - because I am certain to give you the names of only some of those with 4.9mm foundation in South Africa - and then I will be accused of favouritism or worse. Instead, please ask Robbie Post (who is on Bee-L) and is currently the secretary of the Federation of SA Bee Associations to provide you a list and contact details of all in South Africa that might be able to provide the 4.9mm foundation. best regards Mike Allsopp Stellenbosch, South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:47:56 +0300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jean-Jean Menier Subject: Re: Seek information on France - Provence and bees in Paris park ... Comments: To: r@jobhaus.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Robert, and all beekeepers, I consider Bob's query as rather generalist, this is why I send it to bee-l. Apologies to those who have an other opinion. There are lots of hives in Paris. On buildings, in parks, .... The most famous are (were ? ...) those on the roof of the Opera. The most famous place for parisian bee hives is the Jardins du Luxembourg for bee hives. There are hives (including one in a cello !) for public lectures (lectures saturdays afternoon if my memory is good). We have some hives in the Jardin des Plantes (where I work at the entomology Dept, but beetles section !) which is not surprising considering the name of that park ! I am a member of a society working for the introduction and developments of bee hives in public gardens. Address is : "Les Abeilles" (it is a small shop), rue de la Butte aux Cailles, Paris 13ème. We have hives in the Parc Georges Brassens, Paris 15ème. Lavendar honey. The most famous place is the Plateau de Valensol, where there are thousands (yes, thousands !) of hives at the right time for lavendar honey. Too many hive in my opinion .... Hope this helps, but it may come a bit late if you arrive in France september 2nd ! Good luck anyway. At 08:12 31/08/00 -0700, you wrote: >Hi all, > >I have somehow been bumped from the list and haven't been able to get back on. > >Could anyone help me out with information quickly - I am headed to France >and Italy for two weeks starting on Saturday, Sept. 2. I know that Provence >has extraordinary honey given the Lavendar growing region, so does anyone >have specific suggestions of towns or locations, etc. I also recall that >there was a specific park in Paris which had a dozen or so hives. Having bees >in San Francisco, I know how wonderful a city base can be and wanted to >locate the hives for a visit if possible. I will also be in Tuscany in case >there was anything specific to that region. > >Thanks for your consideration. > >robert@citybees.com > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 06:57:52 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Michael Housel Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I study local feral hives. The hives that are surveying are the open outside the tree (Orlando's weather permits) ones. The ones inside walls, fire chimney, and dressers are hives that have open area under them. All the hives have mites but the ones with an area underneath them of open space are survival hives. The small hive beetle ate the center brood and pollin from the hives but they survived. Weaken but not gone they have went thur another year. Open Bottom is the only common item. The bees that are weaken fall from the hive and or can't reach the 25 to 40 feet height where the hive is located. If propolis, pollin, or honey nectar had been the answer the hives would have a common plant/flower in the area. Ants have cleaned up weaken hives but they can be chemically controlled away from the honey and products. I use a queen extruder inplace of a floor and these have are starting to produce excess. Michael Housel Orlandobee ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 07:13:00 -0400 Reply-To: arl@q7.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Al Subject: Re: Evolution of varroa In-Reply-To: <200009010334.XAA12101@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Cushman writes: >Whatever the process was...Varroa is "out of the bag" now and we humans do >not have the millions of years to spare for a new balance to be struck. >There have been a lot of comments that the whole varroa problem is >man created. This is obviously quite true, but one must remember that >beekeeping, too, is man created. Up until 150 years ago, honeybees >were still essentially wild creatures. Beekeepers gathered them into >apiaries, which probably produced some unnatural overcrowding, which >encourages disease. There is a good deal of thought today that the greatest threat to a species is mobility. Man did not create the mite problem by changing the cell size of the European honey bee. Man created the problem when either the European bee was moved into Varroa territory or Varroa was moved out of its native land. But this does not mean that we will have to wait millions of years for answers. Honeybees are loaded with thousands of genes that represent the traits needed for survival. Unlike humans who are able to add behaviors by learning, honeybees have their entire "program" included in their DNA. As the pressure of Varroa increases the breeding populations of honeybees will change and recessive genes will have a greater chance of coming together as the population declines. The chances of finding these genes is also improved as breeding programs reduce the amount of chance involved. The argument that larger cell sizes have helped Varroa would be based on the pressure placed on the breeding population of honeybees by beekeepers. As beekeepers desired "bigger bees" they encouraged the continued breeding of bees that did well on the larger celled foundation. The problem with that is that until the Varroa problems some areas had healthy feral populations that were outside of the breeding pressure. In areas like Florida and Texas the T-mite problem did not eliminate the feral colonies. I would suggest that the best we can hope for in smaller cell sizes is some pressure against the Varroa. Of course right now we are just hoping for another two generations of beekeepers. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 08:44:57 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Martin Damus Subject: genetic theory -Reply Comments: To: robt_m@TALK.CO.NZ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Obviously, Apis cerana has some form of defense that it uses against the varroa. Perhaps this could be transferred to Apis mellifera? Apis cerana drills a hole in the cap of drone cells. If they detect varroa, they haul the pupa out and dispose of it. All GM 'products' currently available are simple insertions of a very small number (usually one) of genes. To transpose such a behaviour from one species to another is, for now, truly beyond our ability, since it almost certainly involves a large number of genes. Maybe in a million years Apis mellifera will evolutionarily 'learn' to do this too. Maybe we can speed it up by selection. Maybe we can select for a different defense, maybe our bees will evolve a novel defense. I don't think we'll be able to 'engineer' them to. Martin Damus ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 07:01:53 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James Kilty asked, as did several others, if cell size is the contributing factor to control Varroa, then why do feral colonies die off? We have an excellent experiment which has already been conducted. Bees were introduced to the US many hundreds of years ago, well before the artificial increase in cell size. So the bees have had hundreds of years to accommodate to so called natural cell size, yet the feral bees were the first to succumb to varroa. Nature has run the experiment and we have the results. Another small point which also has been beaten to death, but keeps coming up, when the term Varroa resistance is used, it means Varroa tolerant. You might develop fully resistant bees, but what we really want is varroa tolerance so we have a hive of bees that live comfortably with varroa, tracheal and the like without massive die-off. And to say that the trait cannot be passed down flies in the face of nature and the Varroa tolerant Apis Cerrana, who seem not to have found out that they are not allowed to pass on the trait. Probably because they do not have the internet yet. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:50:41 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "GUILLAUME, Rene" Subject: Re: Varroa size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Great all, Following Barry Donovan, the average of these seven Varroas is 1.68mm, if we take a Bee with size = 12mm, we can make comparison with a man at 1.70 m with parasite dimension = 238 mm old on the back !! Varroa is very biggest parasite in animals reign !!! I don't think to change the dimensions of cells will be better because Api Cerana is concerned also by Varroa in natural trees-hives (unspoiled colony) but A.Cerana can clean there hives, however Api-Mellifera is currently helplessness. I think this problem will be resolved by Api-Mellifera but with some time. In effect this is not same scale in génétic life racing (in accordance to the low of Sir Darwin) between Varroa (about 12 generations in one year) and Api-Mellifera (about 1 generation every 4 years). At this proportionality, Varroa is very far away in front before all the Bees (Genetic variation is about 48 times fastened to Varroa than Bee !!!!) So I am sure that we are responsible about propagation around the world of Varroa and him has really knew take profit of this new opportunity for own development. I don't agree for chemical response because wee see in short time but I'm sure Apistan, Clartan etc... Are more poison for our Bee than Varroa (due to capacity of quick genetic adaptation). Please, excuse me if my English is not correct, but it is very good discussion. Regards, R. GUILLAUME {;-o)> ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:26:20 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Michael W Stoops Subject: Re: worker bee & sizecell size Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit If foundation cell bases determine cell size, and if feral colonies build hives with no foundation, then cell size in feral hives should be what we are considering to be a more natural, smaller size. ....downsizing alters genetic structures just like that. QUERY: What if the size of the worker bee determined the size of the cell structure built by that bee? Would our "manmade" worker bee make brood comb in size relative to the size of the worker? "My head, thorax, whatever, is of such a size so the cell width has to be a certain size relative to my size." If such a postulate were true, that would explain the difficulty in getting worker bees to work smaller cell size foundation "possibly". We could definately look to see if there seems to be an attempt at downsizing brood comb by feral bees as compared to that standard used in the apiary industry. I have access to a feral colony established inside the walls of a house. I plan to cut the comb out and tie it into frames. With all the discussion about cell size I think I shall try to get the bees to draw out comb in empty frames by providing just a very thin strip of starter foundation and see if they will draw out a smaller size cell comb. I'm definately open for comments/suggestions. Mike Stoops 1/2 way between Montgomery & Mobile, Alabama, USA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:42:26 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adony Melathopoulos Subject: single vs multiple gene resistance Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> Obviously, Apis cerana has some form of defense that it uses against the varroa. Perhaps this could be transferred to Apis mellifera? > The idea that any such trait is based on only one gene, or on some very small package of genes, is implausible. In fact there are many behavioral honey bee traits that can be traced back to a handful of genes, among the most famous are the 2-3 recessive loci (or discrete non-segregating chunks of DNA) that impart hygenic behavior, whereby workers abort brood cells before foulbrood can sporulate or varroa have offspring. Nonetheless, intuitively I am drawn to Robert's arguement, there is a big difference between taking discreet genes within a species and shuffling them around compared to moving genes among species. Genes work in the context of other genes, and putting a bacterial gene in a honey bee is at a much higher risk to fail than just moving honey bee genes around; IMHO it is too foreign a context to expect things to be in balance. I will make a case, however, that even if single gene resistance to varroa is available, through classical breeding or transgenics, it cannot expect to hold up for very long. Throughout agriculture there are numerous examples of single gene solutions to keep a crop protected by a pest or disease which do not last long. Take the numerous variaties of wheat with single gene resistance to Hessian fly or Bt-transgenic lines of corn resistant to corn borer; it does not take long for resistance to break down. Resistance of this kind is no better than applying a pesticide in terms of resistance management. The most successful cases of resistance are those which involve many many genes working in concert. Resistance of this kind is not easy to breed for, and maintaining lines once established can be a nightmare, but once established pests and diseases are hard pressed to overcome them. Returning to the case of honey bee hygenic behavior, the character was first discovered by investigating a beekeeper's line, the Brown line, came about by repeatedly selecting for bees that survived on comb with AFB scale, NOT by selecting for hygenic behavior. Further investigation into the Brown line found that not only was hygenic behavior at work, but resistant characteristic carried by the developing larva was also at play. Many characters at work rather than one leads to more robust resistance... it only stands to reason. But single-gene resistance varieties of crops are far more common than varieties in which multiple genes confer resistance. Why? It is easier and faster to screen and maintain lines based on a few genes than on many genes. What does this mean? Lines incorporating a few genes that confer resistance will give immediate relief and the quickest results, which of course is what the industry needs today. If, however, we also consider the long term health of bee stocks, large breeding programs to select for lines with multiple gene resistance to pests must also be considered. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Regards Adony Adony Melathopoulos Apiculture Biotechnologist Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Beaverlodge Research Farm Box CP 29 Beaverlodge, Alberta CANADA T0H 0C0 T +1 780 354 5130 F +1 780 354 8171 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:13:07 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: worker bee & sizecell size In-Reply-To: <200009011452.KAA23428@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > QUERY: What if the size of the worker bee determined the size of the cell > structure built by that bee? Would our "manmade" worker bee make brood comb > in size relative to the size of the worker? "My head, thorax, whatever, is > of such a size so the cell width has to be a certain size relative to my > size." Nicely put. One of the many things that seem to be missing from this discussion is facts, like the fact that bees in any one hive already vary in size considerably and the measurements we discuss are averages. Up to 100% differences in weight between individual worker bees can be observed. How can they agree on what size of cell to build? Is it really important? Individual worker bee size depends on nutrition and other factors such as genetics, which can vary a lot in any given hive and from season to season. There is much more speculation and assumption in this discussion than measurement and observation. As has been pointed out previously by one astute member, some of the experiments necessary to debunk this amazing attractive myth are already running in nature and in our hives, if only we can push away from the desk, set aside our prejudices and pet theories, and go outside and take a look. allen --- A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb, unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:08:35 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Michael W Stoops Subject: Re: (Man created varroa problem) Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit ...natural experiment suggests that feral hives, with smaller cell sizes, did succumb to Varroa infestation. What about those rare occassions where a feral colony is found, and evidence might suggest that it has been in continual existance for more than a couple of years? Might we beekeepers use these colonies in an attempt to determine if they are, in fact, resistant to mite infestations. Then, if so determined, use them in an attempt to determine the causitive factors for this resistance to mites? I have several "beehavers" in the area whom I hope to approach in an interest in determining just how "mite resistant" their colonies are. If the colonies "seem" to be mite resistant in some way, I hope to encourage them to make splits next spring and buy several splits from each. Just looking for a way with some modicum of scientific method. Mike Stoops 1/2 way between Montgomery & Mobile, Alabama, USA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:37:01 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Small cell size and varroa -- A summary Comments: To: IrishBeekeeping@listbot.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Small cell size and varroa -- A summary and assessment of current information. Since varroa has become such a terrible and intractable pest for beekeepers, many people seek a "final solution" for this problem. The idea of using foundation with smaller (4.9 mm) cells to reduce varroa populations has received quite a bit of attention on the internet, if not elsewhere. I have attempted to find out as much as possible about this and wish to summarize what I have found. First, I feel that no treatment that shows promise should be dismissed. IPM (integrated pest management) techniques are frequently aimed at *reducing* pests and are often used in combination for mutual enhancement. Very often these treatments vary in their effectiveness and have to be supplemented with chemical control (which also varies in effectiveness). In order to give this treatment a thorough evaluation I feel it must be tested in different regions and in different apiaries. It must be tested side by side with control hives (non-treatment or other treatment hives). The method of setting up an apiary to test a treatment can be debated but a significant reduction in varroa must be shown between treatment and non-treatment hives in the same apiary. There have been a number of theories as to why this treatment would work and why it hasn't caught on. The idea that bee supply manufacturers and research institutions do not want it -- is erroneous. The cost of tooling up to produce odd-sized foundation is not that great and would be recouped quickly *if* enough material was sold. The rollers used to stamp foundation wear out and are replaced often enough that to add odd-sized rollers could be done fairly easily. At this point it is already possible to obtain small sized foundation from Africa and drone foundation from U.S. suppliers. The theory that changing cell size in the early 1900s caused the varroa problem simply doesn't hold water. The idea that varroa probably moved into Apis mellifera hives at the same time as the experiments with 5.4 mm foundation and therefore these events are connected is an unprovable conjecture at best. Modern beekeeping was barely 50 years old at that time and there were so many changes taking place that cause and effect connections simply cannot be feasibly drawn at this late date. The bottom line, however, is that it doesn't matter. If a technique works, a theory for why it works is not necessary and can be generated at some later point. In my opinion, the following theory is more plausible: Varroa prefer larger cells and in the species Apis cerana they are seldom found in the worker cells. The worker cells of Apis mellifera are larger than cerana, so they are more attractive to the varroa. But this is good, because if the varroa can be driven out of the worker cells by whatever method, it is possible that the colony will be able to survive the infestation. Furthermore, the addition of 2 or 3 drone combs to *attract* the mites (to be removed and frozen twice a month) would constitute an excellent IPM plan. The notion that this technique is being suppressed is erroneous. Research institutes are not all beholden to chemical companies. Some researchers may have received money from corporations but I don't think this has altered the direction of research *as a whole*. The USDA is promoting screened bottom boards as a method of reducing mites. Who makes money off of this? It isn't even a patentable idea, anyone can make their own device and cheaply, to boot. The blueprints for the Ontario Pollen Trap were released into the public domain years ago -- bee researchers have shown a willingness to share new ideas and are not in this field to get rich, in any case! Dr. Erickson (USDA) has done some controlled studies of the small cell size and has reported promising results. He told me that, due to some problems unrelated to the merit of the study, the wide publication of his results was delayed. Personally, I am disturbed by the fact that the two mostly widely publicized studies (possibly the only ones) have been conducted in southern Arizona. This area has been infiltrated by Africanized bees and that alone could account for reductions in varroa populations. It has been reported that the Africanized bee in South America can coexist with the mite. It is the bee industry that has demanded and gotten the chemical controls because they have millions of hives at stake. They want something powerful and effective that produces quick and observable results. There are many problems associated with chemical control of pests and this issue will never go away. The pesticide treadmill is one we may never get off. The whole genetic engineering industry uses this as a primary justification for their work, as does the organic farming community. Everyone wants to get off of pesticides, because they are ruining the air and water of this planet. No one wants to see the cancer rates continue to rise. The problem is that we are addicted to these techniques and cannot go off "cold turkey". In order for a large scale experiment to be conducted there has to be *credible* justification. The promise of widespread adoption is not a requirement. It is doubtful that commercial beekeepers would adopt the technique of adding and replacing drone combs twice a month, and yet this is being tested by a number of organizations. It is true that the replacement of all the combs in all the hives would be a staggering expense. I don't think all the combs would have to be replaced. Only the brood area has to be modified. This could be a problem for all beekeepers who do not use queen excluders. For those that do, the new combs could be drawn in the supers and the honey extracted. Then the queen could be confined to one or two boxes with an excluder and forced to lay in the smaller cells. The old supers could still be used for honey storage, above the excluder. (Many beekeepers simply don't believe that they could incorporate excluders into their operation. It would also be an additional expense.) The biggest problem facing beekeepers today is the sagging price of honey. If honey was worth more, then labor intensive or expensive treatments would be more feasible. The reputation of honey as an attractive product has to be reestablished and promoted. The thinner the profit margin, the less eager any beekeepers are to take risks. Small beekeeping associations are in the best position to sponsor or conduct experiments. It is essential, however, to be conservative in reporting results. Exaggerated claims or unrepeatable conclusions will only generate prejudice and prevent the truth from being discovered. Please note: The opinions expressed here are mine alone and are not intended to reflect Cornell University policy officially or unofficially. All time and effort spent researching this topic was my own and not underwritten by my employer. I grant permission to quote or reproduce this document provide attribution is given as follows: Peter Borst. Ithaca, NY. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 12:09:38 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: A call for research and foundation In-Reply-To: <200009011545.LAA25591@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > In order to give this treatment a thorough evaluation I feel it must > be tested in different regions and in different apiaries. It must be > tested side by side with control hives (non-treatment or other > treatment hives). The method of setting up an apiary to test a > treatment can be debated but a significant reduction in varroa must > be shown between treatment and non-treatment hives in the same apiary. > The bottom line, however, is that it doesn't matter. If a technique > works, a theory for why it works is not necessary and can be > generated at some later point. Peter - We all need to hear what you just said. The discussion we are having on small cell size in relation to being an effective method for mite treatment at the very least, is good. Everyone is expressing their own feeling about the subject but many times I read remarks that show very little to no reading of existing information on this topic has been done, even though it's readily available for all on the web. This technique of keeping bees on 4.9mm cells is working as the Lusby's are living proof. You can debate why it's working but not the fact that "it" is working and has been for quite a few years with their production growing every year. I find it to be such a common practice among certain people on this list to always want to find the fault with something or someone instead of whatever good can be found. The FACT is that the Lusby's themselves state right in the article that all can read, if only they would do it, I quote: "This shows breeding is not all the solution. We figure comb is 1/3, diet is 1/3 and breeding is 1/3. Comb must be put in by half (5) to full boxes to work." http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/abjdec1997.htm I get the feeling that most people think all you need to do is throw a bunch of 4.9 foundation in their hives and the mites will disappear. No where in all the info that is posted about the Lusby's work is a claim made that 4.9 cell size will rid a hive of mites, no where. Yet a lot of people are using this assumption in their reasoning. Broad statements are made where finer details need to be understood. The mites are still in their hives but at extremely low levels. They also feel that by having their bees on a natural size that has no chemical residues in the wax or honey, (go and read the literature for their definition of natural) gives the bee a better standing to deal with secondary diseases. This same article shows that "a significant reduction in varroa must be shown between treatment and non-treatment hives in the same apiary." I quote from it: "On 11 September Dr. Eric H. Erickson, the director of the Carl Hayden Bee Research Facility in Tucson, Arizona, went with us to two bee locations, in unisolated areas, to test for both tracheal mites and Varroa mites. Samples taken in the center of the brood nest also contained drones where possible. We choose unisolated locations because we wanted to show him, to beat the problem, one must be able to accomplish business as normal in doing bee management within the field. Please note that beekeepers around us have severely lost bees, as we ourselves have, to both mites over the years. When taken, several adjacent yards within 2 miles were being treated, crashing, or being fed to keep them alive. Our bees were building; and at the Carmen yard were very fast drawing new foundation." Granted, this is not a "controlled" study, but enough there to warrant a scientific research with further studies on small cell size. Let's start putting our energy into soliciting Dadant to produce 4.9 foundation and our scientists (logically this should be Dr Erickson) to pick up the research on this again. As someone else wrote, let's put up or shut up. If both of these contacts received sincere requests of those mentioned, I'll bet wheels would turn. They won't if all they hear is silence. I challenge everyone to act. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:53:17 -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 Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: (Man created varroa problem) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael W Stoops wrote: > What about those rare occasions where a feral colony is found, and evidence > might suggest that it has been in continual existance for more than a couple > of years? >>>>>>>> I have several "beehavers" in the area whom I > hope to approach in an interest in determining just how "mite resistant" > their colonies are. If the colonies "seem" to be mite resistant in some > way, I hope to encourage them to make splits next spring and buy several > splits from each. > Mike Stoops > 1/2 way between Montgomery & Mobile, Alabama, USA Sounds like a very workable plan. I think even "resistant" colonies can be overwhelmed by exposure to large mite populations, so I wouldn't throw promising colonies into the meat-grinder in heavily infested beeyards without keeping some relatively isolated backups. ----------------------------------------------------------- John F. Edwards "Feral Bee Tracker and AHB Identifier" Carl Hayden Bee Research Center Tucson, Arizona 85719 http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/home/edwards/edwards.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:39:54 -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 Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Small cell size and varroa -- A summary MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Borst wrote: > Small cell size and varroa -- A summary and assessment of current information. > Personally, I am disturbed by > the fact that the two mostly widely publicized studies (possibly the > only ones) have been conducted in southern Arizona. This area has > been infiltrated by Africanized bees and that alone could account for > reductions in varroa populations. It has been reported that the > Africanized bee in South America can coexist with the mite. Thank you for writing up this very logical and insightful message, and yes, it bothers me also that the only studies on this problem have been done in africanized honey bee areas. The AHB has certainly controlled and changed the behavior of beekeepers, and I cannot see why the mites' behavior would not also be changed by the experience. ----------------------------------------------------------- John F. Edwards Carl Hayden Bee Research Center Agricultural Research Service - USDA Tucson, Arizona 85719 http://198.22.133.109/ http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/home/edwards/edwards.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:20:27 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: A call for research and foundation In-Reply-To: <200009011727.NAA29831@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > Granted, this is not a "controlled" study, but enough there to warrant a > scientific research with further studies on small cell size. Let's start I need to add to this. I have talked with the Lusby's about their work and many times they have pointed out to me that they are beekeepers that work the field and know the field methodology. They are able to make it work in the field and are more than happy to show anyone how it's done. They have put forth their own ideas and reasons as to *why* it works, but it is not up to them to prove it in the lab. Their simple approach to the lab is, "you tell us why it works." They shouldn't have to do both. So in our discussion about their ideas, remember, they have done their part to make it work in the field. It's the lab side that is weak. They are "pleading" (my word) to have their work scrutinized and tested by the labs. Ask that Dr. Erickson and his lab would pick up the research they were doing a few years back on the small cell and test the Lusby's bees. That would be a start and a quick indication to whether or not there is really something to the smaller cell that factors into the Lusby's method. I forgot to include contact info last time so here it is. Dr. Eric H. Erickson email: eric@tucson.ars.ag.gov fax: 520-670-6493 work: 520-670-6380 X104 http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov Carl Hayden Bee Research Center DADANT & SONS, INC. (main office) 51 South 2nd St. Hamilton, IL 62341-1399 Ph: 217-847-3324 Toll Free Order: 1-800-637-7468 (7am-4pm CT) Fax: 217-847-3660 (24 Hr.) Email: Dadant@dadant.com Contact regarding foundation: Jerry Hayes Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:01:47 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dennis M Murrell Subject: Cell Size and Varroa Tolerance MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello An interesting note to the cell size controversy is that a varroa tolerance stock has already been researched, documented and achieved in the same geographic region where the cell size method for the control of varroa originated. In the August 2000 edition of the American Bee Journal, the Report entitled "Producing Varroa-tolerant Honey Bees form Locally Adapted Stock: A Recipe" was published. It is the latest in a series of reports from these authors. Both the cell size method and this recipe emphasize the need to selectively use and propagate locally adapted stock shown to be varroa tolerant through a forced natural selection. Although much emphasis of the cell size method involves the preparation and introduction of a smaller foundation, the real economic impact involves the selection, propagation and maintenance of a varroa tolerant stock demonstrated to retrogress to the smaller size cell and survive mite infestation untreated. Colonies that cannot retrogress or survive are lost. The Recipe published in the Journal is a proven approach to achieve varroa tolerance. Other methods of varroa control such as incorporating varroa tolerant stock, integrated pest management techniques and equipment modification such as smaller cell size foundation could easily be incorporated into this recipe. Everyone could begin with this recipe now. Best Wishes Dennis Murrell (seeing that truely the squeeky wheel gets most of the grease) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 22:07:07 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Dr. Anton Esterhuysen" Subject: 4.9mm foundation avaiable MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If anybody are interested in 4.9mm foundation, they can visit our South African website www.honeybadger.co.za They can contact me at anton@honeybadger.co.za and it can be sent. Regards Anton Esterhuysen Pretoria, South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:59:10 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Dadant selling 4.9 foundation Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Greetings - I just got the word from Dadant that a decision was made this afternoon to start producing and selling 4.9mm foundation. They are now accepting orders and you can expect a 4-6 week delivery time for initial start up. Once the line is rolling you can expect normal turnover times. They are offering it in 8-1/2" size (deep) but I understand they will consider custom sizes. They will accept wax for foundation (working rates) and also manufacture ones own wax into foundation. (minimum may be required) They will accept orders by phone, email, signed fax or snail mail. I trust plenty of people will start working with this foundation. It will be great to see now how this works in many different areas. Glad to pass this on and I want to thank Dadant. -Barry DADANT & SONS, INC. (main office) 51 South 2nd St. Hamilton, IL 62341-1399 Ph: 217-847-3324 Toll Free Order: 1-800-637-7468 (7am-4pm CT) Fax: 217-847-3660 (24 Hr.) Email: Dadant@dadant.com Jerry Hayes - Contact regarding foundation email: class@dadant.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 15:35:36 -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 Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Dadant selling 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry Birkey wrote: > I just got the word from Dadant that a decision was made this afternoon to > start producing and selling 4.9mm foundation. > Jerry Hayes - Contact regarding foundation > email: class@dadant.com And you thought no one was listening !! - thanks, Dadant - I don't think you'll regret it. ----------------------------------------------------------- John F. Edwards Carl Hayden Bee Research Center Agricultural Research Service - USDA Tucson, Arizona 85719 http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/home/edwards/edwards.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 22:58:25 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) In-Reply-To: <200009011314.JAA20050@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200009011314.JAA20050@listserv.albany.edu>, Bill Truesdell writes >James Kilty asked, as did several others, if cell size is the contributing >factor to control Varroa, then why do feral colonies die off? Sorry I need to correct this. I was actually questioning the argument by working with the ideas in an open way and did not suggest it was *the* contributing factor. I know feral colonies have died out. I have seen it locally. I saw bees on the ground last week with deformed wings (almost non-existent actually) near feral colonies only a year after a swarm arrived. The arguments I made implicitly questioned the strength if any of the connection, though for economy of words I don't put everything I know into a posting. I intend to check which, if any of my colonies bite the legs off varroa as Germans have found with Carniolans and bred for the trait successfully. We can all do things like that. We are also observing "pepperpot" brood - gaps in the pattern where eggs and unsealed brood are found at random in a slab of sealed brood - where there is *no* sign of EFB or chalk brood - in some colonies. Initially I put a bad dose of this in one colony down to inbreeding (tentatively). Now I am wondering along with a colleague that we might have an example of a hygienic bee removing varroa infested worker larvae. Perhaps readers might suggest an obvious alternative. I must have 5 or 6 like this (after eliminating the higher than usual number of colonies with chalk brood this year). The next step is to monitor the colonies carefully - are there any larvae on the ground nearby? It is not the best time of the year to do a study on this but mite fall after apistan in colonies with mesh floors will at least show if the same colonies had a high, medium or low infestation. Lower than the norm would imply something was happening if all other factors seemed similar. Next season I will follow these approaches up and will monitor mites where I have collected them before apistan. Closer observation is certainly called for. A suggestion has crept in to this discussion that contributors have proposed that getting bees to make smaller comb implies changing the genetics. I have not seen this proposal and certainly don't even imagine it. Part of my concern is to marry conflicting ideas. I subscribe to the view that our best strategy in West Cornwall (UK) is to do everything we can to promote native bee characters alongside beekeepers who continue to import Italian bees into a distinctly non-Mediterranean climate. Beowulf Cooper found that A.m.m. bees were *larger* when left to build their own comb. This would presumably also vary depending on locality as he and others have found great variation in other characters such as the peak time for bee populations which related to the principal forage of the areas. I have also had a report of a locality in Scotland where the bees were a great deal smaller than any others the beekeepers had seen. So it would appear once again that observation and measurement is the key. -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 01:11:31 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ted Hancock Subject: Life in a spermatheca Howdy, Can anyone tell me exactly how a spermatheca works? Specifically what mechanism is used to deliver spermatozoa to the egg? Are several (dozen? thousand?) squirted on to the egg or is only one spermatozoan released per egg? If it's more than one, how are the extra done away with when an unfertilized egg is laid? After eight years of swimming around in a spermatheca, do the spermatozoa become any less viable? As for the "beez in tights don't get mites" debate, I think it's quite alright, to make a mite, say, to bee or not to bee, that's the question for a mite like me, if that cell's too tight you see, it might not have mite space for me, it could cramp up my third left knee, and make me wish I was still free, that cell is quite a fright you see, for an incestuous vampire mite like me! Anonymous ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 07:01:40 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Varroa size- and a little extra MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "GUILLAUME, Rene" wrote: > I think this problem will be resolved by Api-Mellifera but with some time. > In effect this is not same scale in génétic life racing (in accordance to > the low of Sir Darwin) between Varroa (about 12 generations in one year) and > Api-Mellifera (about 1 generation every 4 years). At this proportionality, > Varroa is very far away in front before all the Bees (Genetic variation is > about 48 times fastened to Varroa than Bee !!!!) Rene's comments, along with several others, lead to another way of looking at our varroa problem. If the mite can naturally select faster than the bee, is it therefor possible that the mite will select for better accommodation with the bee so both can survive? It seems possible since it makes little sense to kill off your host totally since your species also dies off. We may be too interested in changing the bee and not also looking at the mite. Any balance will probably not happen quickly. We are treating to kill the mite, so any selection will be toward the mites survival in the face of the treatment and not to come into balance with the bee. Is the Varroa in the Southwest the same as what we have in the Northeast? If it is not, then- hold on to your hats here- would the introduction of the Southwest varroa to the rest of the country help select out the more virulent Varroa? My guess is that will happen naturally over time, but by treating, we are slowing the process down considerably. Some philosophy. I enjoy these discussions. I have no problem trying 4.9 foundation or menthol cough drops or FGMO on my hive, since I am a hobbyist and have little to lose. What does concern me is the pack attitude that comes from single data points- it works for me therefor it works for all. Anyone who keeps bees and has any success with new techniques, if they are honest with others, tells them - it works for me, but your conditions may be different. With so many variables in beekeeping that is the only honest comment we can make until controlled experiments demonstrate the new techniques work and why. It may not be the 4.9 foundation, but the beekeepers practices, equipment, location, smoker fuel, nectar source, bee or even the mite that is the reason for the control. In the essential oils and FGMO hysteria, way too many jumped on those bandwagons and lost everything. The problem is, we do not see them posting on the list after the crash. Pride is one reason, but usually they just give up beekeeping and disappear. I will never forget, during the essential oils discussion many years ago, an email I received from a beekeeper who lost all 40 of his hives after following that pack. I can only thank God that I did not follow, since I was just beginning and had I lost everything I might also have quit, like he did. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:00:59 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Robert Mann In-Reply-To: <200009020400.AAA16446@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Robert, you wrote: As a dedicated egg-head I am pleased at the thoughts from Cornell. They are way ahead of the Lysenkoist speculations about cell-size. I take this as an oblique compliment. However,the thoughts are not "from Cornell" -- they are from me and don't represent Cornell. However, I gather from the current Scientific American magazine that Cornell is at the forefront for Genetic Engineering. I have heard of no GM work being done on bees. I should mention that the ".cornell.edu" suffix on my email is the same one given to all persons associated with Cornell, be they student, dean, or janitor. Peter Borst plb6@cornell.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 23:42:49 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: worker bee & sizecell size In-Reply-To: <200009011517.LAA24346@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > There is much more speculation and assumption in this discussion than > measurement and observation. As has been pointed out previously by one astute > member, some of the experiments necessary to debunk this amazing > attractive myth are already running in nature and in our hives, if only > we can push away from the desk, set aside our prejudices and pet theories, > and go outside and take a look. I think maybe I should expand on this. The kind of useful observations that could lead to a greater understanding of the phenomena we are discussing is not beyond any of us that have access to even one hive of bees with varroa sufficient to be a problem. I'll go further into this below, but first, I want to give a simple explanation for Lusby's success in reducing the effect of varroa on their bees. IMO, we don't need to have any 'retrogression' magic happening to explain Lusbys' experience. --- begin simple explanation --- Just for clarification, I do not question whether Lusbys are getting the results they claim or not. What I question is the explanations that are being given and whether their methods are indeed responsible for what they observe. Others worldwide are finding that in a few generations they can reduce the varroa populations by 50% simply by selection from their existing stocks, so if the Lusbys have been at it as long as they have (8? years if I recall), it is not surprising that they are reducing the varroa levels a lot. Moreover, since the bees in their area were becoming africanized during his timeframe and since they are selecting bees that tolerate varroa, and since AHB tend to tolerate varroa better than the average European strain, and since the AHB naturally uses a cell around the 4.9 mm mark, it is not at all surprising that in succeeding generations Lusbys find the bees they raise do well on 4.9 mm foundation. I frankly doubt that in non-africanized areas, that this approach will work at all unless a non-commercial strain is dominant such as the old English bee or the German black bee. These latter bees are smaller and were popular around the turn of the 20th century. This fact probably accounts for the popularity of the slightly smaller(~5.1 mm)foundation made then. During the 20th century, Italians and other larger bees became popular and currently the popular commercial breeds in Canada and USA and -- it seems from all reports I have received -- in Europe as well, like to build their combs around 5.2 to 5.3 mm across. Currently several popular foundations are around 5.4 mm which is a bit roomy. Pierco is about 5.25 mm, a size I consider ideal for my bees. (I asked them and they said it is perfect). Additionally, I should hasten to add that, in regard to the varroa levels being observed by Lusbys and the conclusions being drawn, there are many other potential confounding factors that may have come into play. Ask any researcher who has to observe and encourage varroa development, and I think you will be told that varroa levels are not all that easy to predict and somewhat fickle. Unknown local effects can cause mite populations not to mushroom as expected in one situation, then fail to appear the next. When we are trying to raise bees, we find that it is sometimes hard to meet our population targets due to unexplained factors. Similarly, when trying to manage varroa for testing, sometimes researchers find that the mites just fail to thrive when they should. Very Frustrating. In my case, I cannot explain why I do not as have high levels of observed varroa as I expected this year. I just don't right now, but I know I *should* have much more than I can find. I'm not complaining, just reporting. --- end simple explanation --- Albert Einstein did a lot of his best work without a laboratory or fancy apparatus or grants. He just used his head and thought about what he knew and about what he observed. Each of us has hives of bees and many of us have varroa. Some of us have lots of varroa. Maybe some of us have good observation and reasoning skills. This spring a young scientist discovered signs of varroa mite occupation in a package hive in a yard that had been established from Australian packages in pretty good isolation from other hives (we thought). I mention this because there are several interesting aspects. * First, he saw that a mite had been reproducing there. That means that as beekeepers, we can examine our brood comb and actually see what the mites are doing if we are patient. We can even compare mite activity on different combs if we have several different brands of foundation in use. We can also examine emerging bees to see how many mites come out with them, if any. Does the type of comb make a difference? What about the type of bee? * Second, we can try to figure out what is going on. In the case above, do we conclude that the mites came with the packages? Or do we conclude that the mites somehow were picked up locally? Australia is not supposed to have varroa. we know that bees in our area do. What we conclude from our observations -- or whether we decide we don't have enough information from our observations to make conclusions -- will be a test of our objectivity and reasoning capabilities. allen --- A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb, unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 11:17:06 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: African bee/cell size 4.9 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Dennis M Murrell "An interesting note to the cell size controversy is that a varroa tolerance stock has already been researched, documented and achieved in the same geographic region where the cell size method for the control of varroa originated. ... "Both the cell size method and this recipe emphasize the need to selectively use and propagate locally adapted stock shown to be varroa tolerant through a forced natural selection." comment: Just what is the "locally adapted stock" they are using in the Tuscon area? According to Dr. Erickson (in a personal communication) "feral" hives in the Tuscon area are over 95% Africanized. Eva Crane in her excellent book "Bees and Beekeeping" (1990), makes the following points: "Where colonies of both Africanized and European bees are present, drones of the former drift into colonies of the latter, whereas European drones rarely drift into Africanized colonies (Rinderer, 1985). ... In a 'mixed' area many more Africanized than European drones are therefore present (in 'mixed' apiaries, 91% were Africanized -- Rinderer, 1987)." "To achieve isolation, a distance of 15 km has been quoted as safe, but in Canada, Szabo (1986) found that even 20 km was not. " "Where colonies of both Africanized and European bees are present, it is very important to be able to distinguish between them. A simple and rapid method ... is to make three measurements across the parallel sides of 10 cells of natural worker comb; results (Rinderer, 1986) predict that an average of 49 mm [cell size 4.9 mm] or less indicates comb built by Africanized honey bees, and of 52 mm [cell size 5.2 mm] or more, by European bees. Identification is not possible if the distance is 50 to 51 but Africanization might be suspected." So can the beekeepers in the Tuscon area be sure they are not using Africanized bees (the "locally adapted stock") in their experiments? (More detailed references available on request.) Please note: The opinions expressed here are mine alone and are not intended to reflect Cornell University policy officially or unofficially. All time and effort spent researching this topic was my own and not underwritten by my employer. I grant permission to quote or reproduce this document provide attribution is given as follows: Peter Borst. Ithaca, NY. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:59:11 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: William Morong Subject: Cell size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Help! This is getting confusing. If what Peter Borst posted is correct, the bees with 4.9 mm in the Tuscon area are Africanized. I thought everybody was supposed to be trying to eliminate AHB genes. Africanized honey bees are legally defined as a pestilence, and are illegal to possess here in Maine. Are the bees that folks are working with having 4.9 mm cells in the Tuscon area really AHB? If so, does their Africanization make them inherently less susceptible to varroa, regardless of what sized cells they happen to inhabit? Are AHB not the horrible monsters the media (and our laws in Maine) would make them? Clearly people in Africa and elsewhere successfully handle African honeybees and AHB. Clearly the public perception (and that of many beekeepers) of European honeybees seems vastly to overemphasize the ferocity of the rather peaceable European creatures. Could someone definitively describe the bees in question being kept on small cells near Tucson with some useful diminution of the ravages of varroa, and if they are AHB tell us what they are actually like to handle. Bill Morong ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 22:21:24 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Mosquito spray notes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So far as I and other beekeepers who are monitoring, have been able to determine, all applications along the East Coast this year are being done at night, which means they comply with label directions of the commonly used adulticides. I have not heard of, nor do I expect to hear, of damage to bees, as long as this practice continues. Beekeepers need to be in contact with these public officials, and they need to know that we are aware what the label says. A letter from Dr. Nick Calderone (Cornell) advises beekeepers to pen up bees for the day following applications. http://www.westchestergov.com/health/WNVbeekeeperLetter.htm In my experience this is overdoing it, as the stresses of confining bees can also do a lot of damage. At any rate, it commits the beekeeper to staying near his bees to cool and water them periodically - not always possible for those who have a job, or for those who have bees at multiple sites. I hope Nick is also emphasizing to the public officials that it is label violations of the type we saw last year that do the real damage. Butterflies have no legal protection that I know of, though damage is done to them (as well, along with many other organisms, so the long term effect of these massive spray programs will have many repercussions). Many of us know what it's like to see bee kills. Here is one community's experience with a butterfly kill: http://www.mankatofreepress.com/archives/2000/000826/story1.html I am not against pesticides. I use them myself. But I am uneasy with the increasingly widespread (government run) applications, which leave no islands of safety for many beneficial (even vital) organisms. When a field or orchard is treated, the surrounding untreated areas form a "safety net" where the good guys can reproduce and repopulate. When tens of thousands of acres are treated the area becomes increasing barren of the beneficials, and increasingly subject to population explosions of pests. In case no one understands what I am saying, here's the idea in a nutshell: "pesticide treadmill." Congrats on your article in Bee Culture, John Mitchell, (and Kim, too) where you dealt courageously with the real issues here. After the post Fran spraying two years ago, American Bee Culture ran a whitewash, ignoring the real issue, which was that the applications were in clear violation of the label directions. I'd like to see a followup, John, where you explore the trail of money that is involved in these massive projects. Someone is making a huge profit with these. Which public official is playing golf (or footsie) with which pesticide salesman? I'm not making any specific accusations here, because I have no specific information. The biggest clue so far is that the big guys routinely get away with violations, while little guys get enforcement actions. Here in South Carolina, the events I documented last year were admitted to be in violation by the pesticide police, but no enforcement action was taken. We ought to be really skeptical and wise here, with so much at stake. Dave Green SC USA The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com Mosquto spray violations after Hurricane Floyd: http://memebers.aol.com/gardenbees/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 21:54:40 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ron Law Subject: Royal Commission of Inquiry on GE Comments: To: NBA List , NZ Bkprs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The NNFA is preparing submissions to the RC that will include comment on the effects that GE might have on bee products. If anyone wants to have input into developing that part of our submission can you please get in touch -- if several of us could work via email we should get a more robust submission. Overseas input would be welcome. I note that Poverty Bay Beekeepers Branch (the only beekeeping organisation) and Comvita (the only bee product company) are the only bee related one's granted interested person status at the RC. This does not mean that others can't make submissions -- you can. You might like to let us know what your concerns are (as if I don't already know -- you are totally supportive so that you can genetically engineer [and patent and therefore make heaps of lucre] bees that seek out and harvest 500 kg of UMF 20+ honey per hive, are disease (including varroa) free, and rob the competitors hives. The bees will also collect 100 kg of AAA grade propolis and 100 kg of natural bee pollen in granular form.) Oh yeh, I nearly forgot. They also produce heaps of high octane bee venom through stingless apertures and insert royal jelly directly into self sealing capsules. Cheers Ron Law ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 20:31:16 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Paul Cherubini Subject: Re: Mosquito spray notes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Green wrote: > Butterflies have no legal protection that I know of, though damage > is done to them (as well, along with many other organisms, so the > long term effect of these massive spray programs will have many > repercussions). Many of us know what it's like to see bee kills. > Here is one [southern Minnesota] community's experience with a > [monarch]butterfly kill: > http://www.mankatofreepress.com/archives/2000/000826/story1.html Actually, Dave, it is a banner year for monarch butterflies in southern Minnesota, Iowa and South Dakota. Below is how Thea Miller Ryan of Sioux Falls, South Dakota described the situation on Aug 31 to a monarch butterfly discussion list: > We are having an incredible year for tagging. We are getting hundreds, yes, > hundreds of phone calls from people, telling us about their yards full > of monarchs. I think this is the heaviest concentration of monarchs we > have seen in the 4 years we have been tagging. >The calls are coming from southeastern Minnesota, including Luvurne, Hills, >and Blue Mound. Iowa calls are from Inwood area. South Dakota calls are >fromSioux Falls (both urban and rural areas), Dell Rapids, Rowena, Lyons, >Renner, Beresford, Canton, Brandon, Lake Vermillion, Colton, Lennox, Tea, >Parker, Humboldt, Hartford, Aberdeen, Alcester, Harrisburg, and Spencer. When outbreaks of monarchs occur like this, monarchs literally fill the trees that line the streets of small farm towns like Gaylord, MN (where the mosquito fogging related butterfly kill occurred) at the end of Aug and first week of Sept. Possibly the reason some monarchs got killed is that the mosquito spray trucks driving through the city streets at night unknowingly blew the permethrin fogging material at close range into some monarch clusters that were formed in trees along the streets. A loss of a few thousand monarchs from the spray incident is trivial in relation to the many millions of monarchs in Minnesota this year. Ironically, the outbreak of monarch butterflies that is occuring in the upper midwest this year also coincides with the area of the USA where a high percentage of genetically modified corn and soybeans are grown. For example, Gaylord, MN is located in Sibley County, MN. Sibley County is 589 square miles in size = 376,960 acres. Of that 376,960 acres, 132,800 acres (35.2%) is planted in corn and 132,000 acres (35.0%) is planted in soybeans. About 30% of this corn crop is Bt corn and about 55% of this soybean crop is genetically modified (herbicide tolerant) soybeans. As everyone knows, the environmental groups have the world believeing monarch butterflies are gravely endangered by Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans. How ironic that a major outbreak of monarchs is occuring this year in an area of the country where the greatest concentration of genetically modified corn and soybeans is grown. Paul Cherubini ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 13:08:04 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: darn@FREENET.EDMONTON.AB.CA Subject: Re: African bee/cell size 4.9 In-Reply-To: <200009021626.MAA04305@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Peter Borst wrote: > Eva Crane in her excellent book "Bees and Beekeeping" (1990), makes > the following points: > > "Where colonies of both Africanized and European bees are present, > drones of the former drift into colonies of the latter, whereas > European drones rarely drift into Africanized colonies (Rinderer, > 1985). ... In a 'mixed' area many more Africanized than European > drones are therefore present (in 'mixed' apiaries, 91% were > Africanized -- Rinderer, 1987)." Is it possible that one of the reasons that Africanised honey bees tend to replace European honeybees is that we give no drone comb to our bees, resulting in an artificial scarcity of European drones? This would favor propagation by feral AHB colonies which produce a normal percentage of drones. Best regards, Donald Aitken Edmonton Alberta Canada ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 08:56:51 EDT 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: African bee/cell size 4.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/3/00 8:29:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, darn@FREENET.EDMONTON.AB.CA writes: << Is it possible that one of the reasons that Africanised honey bees tend to replace European honeybees is that we give no drone comb to our bees, resulting in an artificial scarcity of European drones? >> Speak for yourself, Don. I've noted in the past that bees without drone comb in the spring will tear out worker comb to build drone comb. I've always used and always advocated putting drone comb on the sides of the brood area. I tell young beekeepers that the bees need drones for colony morale. Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 11:07:11 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Pyramid Subject: Re: worker bee & sizecell size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In my TBH's, the worker bee cell size is 5.3 mm. Both were begun with sounthern queens and bees from my standard hives. I have had bee trees (feral hives) close to my house and under observation for over 8 years. Not one such hive has ever survived the winter. Unless I am able to seal off the dead hive in a bee tree, it is the first place to be taken over by a Spring swarm some of which (but not all) come from my own hives. Burns ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 18:01:44 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Brenchley Subject: (no subject) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick writes: < Others worldwide are finding that in a few generations they can reduce the varroa This is hopeful news; where can I learn more? If this is true, then either the bees are developing a degree of resistance, or the most virulent strains of varroa are disappearing, or both. At a guess, I would imagine the first is most likely to be true, because we know that bees are genetically very variable, while a lot of arthropods and similar organisms are not, if what I have heard is true. Sorry, I don't have a source for that. Is there more information on the cell size used by different races available anywhere? I currently have Italian/British black hybrids; I may change to British black. I believe the old black bees used in the States were similar to the German heath bee; is it true that these were inferior to the British type? <* First, he saw that a mite had been reproducing there. That means that as This is really interesting, only I have a problem. I am unable to see eggs, small larvae or varroa with my glasses on, and I cannot see anything properly through a veil without them. My bees are rather dodgy-tempered, so I don't want to go without the veil. Does anyone have any answer to this? Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 10:56:36 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Posting to the Bee List Comments: To: Mike Allsopp , Allen Dick Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Open letter to Mike Allsopp and Allen Dick, I want to thank and compliment you for your clear and informative contributions to the hotly debated discussion of smaller cell foundation. I only hope people will read them carefully and use their heads before they throw a lot more money at this problem. pb ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 11:34:58 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: HarrisonRW@AOL.COM Subject: Buckwheat Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Does anyone on the list know of a source for 60 lb. pails of buckwheat honey in the New York, CT or MA area? My usual source is no longer carrying buckwheat honey. Please reply my e-mail address. Thank you. Ralph Harrison Milford, CT harrisonrw@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 14:38:51 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: (no subject) << Others worldwide are finding that in a few generations they can reduce << the varroa populations by 50% simply by selection from their existing << stocks. > This is hopeful news; where can I learn more? The August 2000 issue of ABJ has several articles relating a number of reports on thid from Canada, Germany, and the USA. allen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 06:17:19 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Stan Sandler Subject: EFB sterilization Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have been searching the list archives regarding EFB. I have found posts stating that the bacteria is NOT spore forming. However, I have a considerable number of fairly new frames with permadent foundation that contain scale. There has been a lot of list traffic in the past regarding sterilization of plastic foundation with AFB scale. But almost nothing has been written about EFB scale. >From an old post by Joe Hemmens: >Many years ago EB Wedmore gave the following: > > Destruction of disease germs, > > AFB 12 minutes in water at 100C > EFB 10 minutes in water at 65C > > He wrote this in 1932. Sid Pullinger wrote (also several years ago): > I have an old > freezer I use as a fumigation chest, using acetic acid to fumigate against > EFB and nosema. Now, my question is what would be the best methods of treating these frames (radiation and ethylene dioxide and not options here) in view of the information above. Sid, is your acetic acid fumigation for frame treatment when scale is present, or just for prevention? I have found that scraping the frames back to the permadent and then pressure washing does NOT take off the scale. Perhaps soaking them first in something would help. If melissococcus pluton is not spore forming, then how long does the scale remain infective? Regards, Stan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 08:28:45 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: African bee/cell size 4.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit AHB are in the smaller cell size, but AHB have Varroa. Grooming/hygienic behavior seems to be the AHB method of Varroa control. And, I believe it also is one of Apis Cerana methods of control. It is also the predominant method found when EHB colonies are located or selected for that are Varroa tolerant. There are other factors that come into play, but they usually are with different strains of Varroa. From what I have read, the method common to all races of bees exhibiting varroa control is grooming/hygienic behavior. That is mainly leg biting but also opening cells to dispose of pupa with varroa. This all seem to lead back to Allen's comments about which bee are we looking at. If it is AHB, then foundation size probably has nothing to do with Varroa control. If it is not AHB, then is grooming present? If so, it is probably not cell size but what is common to varroa control in all bees. But if grooming is not present, then it might be cell size, but it could also be a host of other variables. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 08:32:48 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Cannaday Subject: Apicure Recently I applied apicure to one of my hives to test the immediate results prior to applying it to all my hives. I noticed a lot of the bees exit the hive 10 minutes after the aplication this was to be expected as the instruction explained that the bees might exit the hive. After an hour or two I notice the bees were continueing to exit and gather at the front. That evening I went back to check the hive and notice a more than normal amount of bees at this hive and what was even more worrying was that it appears that A Lot of wax particles was at the front of the hive and all over the ground... along with dead bees. It was late so I waited until this morning to open the hive and found many dead bees and it appears that several frames with wax\foundation was chewed up. Was this a result of ROBBING as the bees exited the hive and other bees getting in or a strange reaction to Apicure. I had the front open all the way to allow the fumes to move through the hive or something going on with the Apicure causing the bees to tear the hive up or Robbing? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 15:32:41 +0200 Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Servel?= Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Servel?= Subject: imidacloprid MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello, If you visit the website http://www.nobugs.com/Home_Sub/Home_Sub_NoTermites/PremiseBen/Product.htm (bayer USA), you will be informed about the effects of the Premise that a chemical used to kill Termites. The active ingredient of this product is imidacloprid, the same used in Gaucho. This page describes the different effects on the termites : a.. Premise kills termites, draining the colony's strength. Other termiticides only create barriers that repel termites, so they live to attack another day. b.. Premise has no odor and takes less chemical active ingredient to do the job - up to 20 times less! So, Premise poses a low risk to your family, your pets, your home, and the environment around you. c.. Premise causes a range of effects in termites: they stop feeding and are unable to maintain their colony. A second effect, exclusive to Premise, is called Premise Plus Nature™. This phenomenon makes termites susceptible to infection by naturally occurring organisms. Either way, the termites die, and your home is protected! d.. Thanks to an exclusive process called Lateral Soil Movement™ (LSM), Premise spreads in all directions helping ensure thorough soil coverage so termites die when they attempt to get through. e.. Premise distributes throughout the soil creating a thorough Treated Zone™. When termites encounter the Premise Treated Zone, they immediately stop feeding, and your house is protected. At the same time of the use of Gaucho, we have observed, here in Europe, symptoms like very poor harvest of honey, or collapse of colonies after foraging sunflowers whose seeds had been treated with Gaucho. Don't think it is troubling ? François ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 22:11:52 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: pdillon Subject: Re: imidacloprid Comments: To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Servel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Bonjour, Regarding the mail posted by François Servel and Imidacloprid which touched upon the dreadful problems that French and other beekeepers are having still to suffer. Please refer to the items posted previously -Sunflowers and Gaucho in the archives. It details the losses which are still continuing- spring and summer! The product has now been banned in several countries( provisionally in France)- but appears to still be causing problems due to reported persistence in soils, with carry over into other crops such as sunflower- even though the seed has not been treated. It is a complicated story, not yet concluded. Peter ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 21:31:37 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: pdillon Subject: Re: EFB sterilization MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stan, Regarding E.F.B., it is my understanding that "scales" that stick to the wax are not produced. The larvae die from being starvation. If the larvae are removed then the infection is removed. The continuation of the infection is due to not all infected individuals dying- the infection is then passed on via the faecal material left in the cell, which is cleaned by the house bees, allowing for contamination of further individuals as they are fed. If they die, it is before the cell is capped. Regards Peter ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 15:35:21 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "john f. mesinger" Subject: Re: African bee/cell size 4.9 In-Reply-To: <200009041414.KAA11219@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Grooming as a major factor seems reasonable to me. In caring for an observation hive in our nature center, I have on occasion observed a new worker emerging from her cell. In each case two workers seemed to grab her and rotated her while seeming to be biting her [the way I have seen dogs go after ticks]. What I initially thought was an attack seems to have been an extremely thorough grooming. There have been no signs of mites in the hive, so the grooming may just have been a response built into the DNA of this particular group of Italian honeybees. John F. Mesinger jfm6f@unix.mail.virginia.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 11:10:01 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: African bee/cell size 4.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill Truesdell wrote, > > This all seem to lead back to Allen's comments about which bee are we > looking at. If it is AHB, then foundation size probably has nothing to do > with Varroa control. Researchers look for complex answers first. Beekeepers look for simple answers first. In the simple you look for the obvious differences and say are they the cause of the observations you are seeing. Many of my posts are never posted so its hard to present a case with posts missing and i never know which posts are not going on line. People i email direct get a better picture of my theorys. Back to Allens comments: The obvious differences when looking at AHB and our European bees are in MY OPINION the fact Ahb makes the 4.9mm foundation and normally nests are not of the numbers our commercial hives keep with the amount of forced spring brood rearing we cause by spring feeding. Most researchers agree varroa is most destructive in hives raising large amounts of brood. Last spring i had hives i fed 4 gallons of syrup to raising brood for me. In experiments i have tried feeding untreated hives and had to destroy them in two months as even chemicals wouldn't have saved those with the high varroa infestations. I have found there is a level of infestation where treatment is a waste of time and money. My statement is backed up by the research of Marion Ellis (researcher from Nebraska) and teacher of the Nebraska master beekeeping course.I expect to test the 4.9mm foundation with hives rearing huge amounts of brood and not hives not being fed and on minor flows. > But if grooming is not present, then it might be cell size, but it could > also be a host of other variables. My friend H.Bell and i both set up observation hives with varroa and observed the bees. I suggest all beekeepers interested in varroa do the same. I have done many such observation colonies and believe all though grooming takes place it will never be the total answer. My opinion but also my observation. Of the three choices you give i think you are looking deeply at the problem. 1.grooming 2.cell size 3.host of other variables I enjoyed the post and think you understand this complex unprovable problem at this time. Maybe before long we will be able to cross a couple of the above off the list. Maybe not and the debate will rage on! Sincerely, Bob Harrison > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 22:48:18 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit James Kilty wrote: ... > Beowulf Cooper found that A.m.m. bees were *larger* when left to build > their own comb. This would presumably also vary depending on locality as > he and others have found great variation in other characters such as the > peak time for bee populations which related to the principal forage of > the areas. I have also had a report of a locality in Scotland where the > bees were a great deal smaller than any others the beekeepers had seen. ... One factor not seen in the discussion is the age of the comb. Older comb, containing many pupal and larval debris, will effectively reduce the inside dimensions on the cells and, as a result, the size of the bee. The age of those feral colonies that survive might be a factor. Younger established feral colonies' cell size might not be small enough yet for them to resist. That is, assuming cells size is a factor in varroa tolerance. In addition to this, perhaps the fact that older cells become rounder inside (due to the same factor), in stead of hexagonal as per newly built comb, leaves less space for the developing Varroa - in the corners as it were? Thirdly, perhaps there is a biochemical (pheromonal?) reason for their survival based on the larval and pupal skins. Makes me wonder if replacing two sheets of foundation on a yearly basis is a misteek. Robert Post ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 17:02:22 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Stan Sandler Subject: Re: EFB sterilization Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Peter: >Regarding E.F.B., it is my understanding that "scales" that stick to the >wax are not produced. > >The larvae die from being starvation. I don't know if scale is the proper word. The larvae are twisted and show striations. The bees can remove them when they are still soft but I have a lot of hives with very poor hygienic behaviour. The EFB is often present in addition to chalkbrood and once the hive gets weak enough they cannot clean out all the dead larvae. They dry down to a hard "scale?" that is twisted and still shows the striations. It is different than AFB scale in that it is along the midrib (the foundation wall) instead of on the lower cell wall, but it is still a dried diseased larvae on the bottom of the cell and the bees are not cleaning them out and they are stuck quite firmly once they dry up. Regards, Stan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 23:29:45 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: Re: Mosquito spray notes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/2/00 9:21:24 PM, Pollinator writes: << I'd like to see a followup, John, >> Thank you. Letters or posts to the magazine or to a writer let him and the editor know where more coverage is needed. Also, your letters in the "Letters to the Editor" column can provide a vital corrective when something get's omitted or you feel there is something that needs to be corrected or amplified. Sometimes in trying to show the big sweep within space limitations and on deadline, important tangents and significant facts get brief treatment. Or maybe another way of looking at the problem makes more sense to you. In the end, the point is to put the best information out there, so write if you feel the need. In regards to your point about beneficials and the "pesticide treadmill," here's a graph I cut before submitting the pest abatement story: "There was other evidence of pesticide damage. Over at Great Kills beach a week later (after Sept. 3), a Staten Island naturalist, Paul Lederer, was counting dragonflies. He tallied 30 on September 11. The next day, 17 hours after helicopters sprayed the area with malathion, he counted only one. Ironically, dragonflies are voracious predators of mosquitoes." If the pesticides that knock back the mosquitoes are killing the beneficials that prey on them (and sometimes on bees too), more spraying will be needed next year and the year after that and so on... I agree that pesticides are necessary and use them myself (Apistan), but even when properly used to the best of our current knowledge, they can create other problems. Interestingly, according to several people I've spoken with (scientist and park ranger) programs to control invasive plants like purple loosestrife have experienced setbacks when areas where beneficial insects have been introduced were sprayed with pesticides. Controlling invasives cost an estimated $138 billion a year between the damage they cause and the controls used to curb them, accroding to a study published last year by David Pimentel, a Cornell University ecologist. If we spend a million dollars carpet bombing the swamps and the woods and the riparian areas with pesticides to control the mosquitoes, are we wasting a billion dollars spent on beneficial insects? John A. Mitchell Contributing Editor Bee Culture magazine Any opinions expressed in this post are strictly my own, and do not necessarily represent those of Bee Culture magazine or its publisher. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 22:38:12 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "W. Allen Dick" Subject: Free Bee Classifieds I haven't mentioned the free beekeeping classifieds lately. In fact, I haven't even visited them myself for a while. I dropped in today and noticed that there are getting to be quite a few interesting ads, including a pointer to a Danish dealer's site where plastic hives are shown, and a commercial operation in Canada for sale. Any tasteful ad for bee supplies or bee operations, beekeeping jobs, etc. is welcome. Why not drop by? The site is at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/BeeAds/ allen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 01:19:20 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: cell size debate Hello all, After reviewing the cell size posts I have to say those on both sides of issue are standing firm in their opinions. Many valid questions have been raised. As Barry said research needs to be done. I agree enough of a interest has been shown. Proven to me by Dadants going to make the 4.9mm foundation so we can all see for ourselves. Allen Dick says i didn't prove my case. I don't think i did to Allen but I respect his views and say "we can agree to disagree". I also say to Allen he didn't prove his case to me. Enough said! Researchers need to look at several issues raised and find the answers. 1. Why Dee Lusbys 500+ hives are alive and producing honey without treatments. comment: Allen will say from the selective breeding. I say there is not one shred of proof that the varroa tolerant trait is able to be bred for! I agree U.S.D.A. lab has bees alive without treatments or so they say. I agree Dee has many more hives alive or so she says. I say both have not got proof as to why their hives are existing without treatments ONLY THEORYS. 2. Why varroa seems to not be a big problem to AHB on 4.9mm foundation comment: Most researchers agree this is the case and wonder themselves. 3. Why varroa doesn't reproduce in A.cerana 4.7mm worker cells. comment: Again a mystery. Cell size or missing trigger. I wish i knew! After all these years looking at the issue its easy for me to see that none of the theorys as to why varroa jumped AND WHEN from A. cerana to A.melifera will ever be proven . Not mine or not Allens. Both have merits and will be discussed at beekeeping meetings long after we are gone. In my opinion from rereading the Lusby article in January 1998 Bee Culture that her bees are not africanised. Kim Flottum editer says many were worked without veils.page 28 Lester Hines the beekeeper working with the Tucson Bee lab says in his article in the same issue (page 33 ) that his bees are African. I believe the true test of Dees bees and the Tucson Labs bees will be by raising the population levels. A fact of varroa and verified by my own personal experiance is that strong hives are the hives most ravaged by varroa. As a teenager we raced cars. At idle all the motors held up. Crank up the revolutions and many came apart. I hope the 4.9mm theory doesn't come apart when populations and brood rearing is cranked up as is the case in the Midwest. Once established in my test apiary i am going to set up two queen units on 4.9mm foundation. ALL SUCH TESTS OF NOT TREATING THOSE HAVE ENDED UP WITH DEAD COLONIES BY THE END OF THE SEASON. Is the reason European bees are ravaged by varroa and not the African bees SIMPLY because most AHB colonies never raise brood like the European hives do. Dr. Orley Taylor from Kansas and i have discussed the issue and the years he researched AHB in Mexico he NEVER let or had AHB raising the amount of brood our bees produce. Maybe our friends working AHB can add their knowledge.Is the reason AHB handles varroa better because they normally have smaller colonies instead of the 4.9mm foundation? Does varroa ravage the AHB colonies raising the most brood the most? I have no way of knowing! Help bee-L! I have said i don't believe in breeding as the total answer. I wait to test this super strain of varroa tolerant bees the USDA is breeding. I want to bring those bees above a "idle"and see if they hold up. To me if they can't produce honey and polinate they belong in bee ICU. Only my opinion but the other side has to prove to me their bees are indeed varroa tolerant. Write all the papers you want but so far i haven't seen a strain of bees able to live and produce honey as well as those hives treated with chemicals. Will somebody please correct the data printed in ABC_XYZ of beekeeping and other places. Quote page 643 Varroasis.-This affliction of honeybees is caused by the mite Varroa Jacobsoni which was FIRST reported by Jacobson in Java in 1904 as a parasite on Indian bees.A Indica Fabr. comment: How can anyone say this parasite has been a parasite of bees for milions of years! I demand proof Allen and others! Quote page 643-The present distribution has extended to Russia where it was first noticed in 1964,and on to other european countries in 1967. Could somebody enlighten me as to why importers of the Russian queens are saying the strain of Russian bees has survived varroa for eons! Maybe a bee-l reader could put a name on the rsearcher which first documented varroa on bees in Russia. According to this book and others Varroa was first noticed in Russia only three years before Europe. I feel i ask a valid question and want a name and date . In closing i believe the Russian bees need to be evaluated as to why they are showing varroa tolerance which i agree they do and remain to be shown that their offspring are as tolerant . I also wonder why Aaron declined to report on his experiance with the Russian queens.Aaron i am still waiting! Did you get your monies worth? Also after rereading all the posts i see only Allen quoting a couple articles in Aug. ABJ for proof of his ideas and Theorys. Allen i say those articles prove my opinions and theorys! I imagine this post will be deleted as many of mine are but to the moderators i say: only weak minds follow without question! The debate has been fun and hope we can all agree to disagree as finding two beekeepers to agree on what they are looking at in a hive is very hard! Sincerely, Bob Harrison Thanks Dadant and sure you won't regret your decision! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 01:03:37 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: pdillon Subject: Re: EFB sterilization MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stan, The description is like E.F.B. The larvae could be described as looking like they have an acute attack of the stomach ache!- changing colour from the usual pearly sheen to creamy, slight pale yellow/green tinge, contorting into unnatural positions. Also if they are A.F.B. scales then under a U.V. SOURCE they apparently glow. Scales, haven't seen any scales before, maybe it is to do with the plastic comb+lousy cleaners. If that's the case, change the strain of bee to a "hygienic" type( should help clear the problem with chalk brood - little problem over here, genetic base of our queens in general still shows traits of resistance to this problem) Plastic comb- that I have had no experience at all - still using the old wax foundation. It seems to me that if wax is used, then disease may be limited by regular changes of wax - I am supposing that one is less likely to throw plastic frames away. Regarding the scales, I presume (dangerous I know!) that they are not a source of contamination once the medium they depend upon for their nutrition(living bee larval tissue) has been removed. What are the group's thoughts on this? Regards Peter ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 23:33:31 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: Looking for beekeepers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Does anybody know how to contact Kevin and Shawna Roberts, two commercial beekeepers located in Hollister, CA, who were contributing excellent posts to bee-l in 1996? They were members of the Delta Bee Club. They're email address is no longer valid. Thank you, John Mitchell ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 11:29:48 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adony Melathopoulos Subject: Re: EFB sterilization Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Stan, There has not been many studies that investigate the susceptibility of EFB to gamma irradiation: Pankiw, P. L. Bailey, T. A. Gochnauer abd H. A. Hamilton. 1970. Disinfection of honeybee combs by gamma irradiation. II. European foulbrood disease. J. Apic. Res 9: 165--168. Hornitzky, M.A.Z. 1982. Use of gamma irradiation from cobalt 60 in the control of Streptococcus pluton in honey. J. Apic. Res. 21: 126--127. Unfortunately, the Pankiw paper is missing from our library, but a summary of the paper states that the study irradiated infected comb with 8kGy of gamma irradiation, and following treatement there were 'sufficient viable organisms... to cause EFB when these combs are placed in healthy colonies.' The Hornitzky paper that small samples of honey (100ml) could be sterilized when subjected to a dose of 14kGy. We are running a study looking at the penetration of high velocity electron irradiation through different types of comb (ie with honey, without honey, with crystalized honey) to see how many combs can be sterilized at once. There is so little EFB out here that we have not set any treatments up, however I was unaware that so little data exists for EFB that maybe we will include it on future runs. >From an old post by Joe Hemmens: >Many years ago EB Wedmore gave the following: > > Destruction of disease germs, > > AFB 12 minutes in water at 100C > EFB 10 minutes in water at 65C > > He wrote this in 1932. Since 1932 there has been some work on looking to decontaminate comb without irradiation or fumigation with ethylene oxide. The work I am familiar with is from NZ, where they investigated various methods of sterilization of more bulky colony wooden ware, such as supers, lids and bottom boards. All the work is with AFB. Dipping equipment in hot paraffin wax has been shown to provide excellent decontamination of hive equipment when immersed for 10min at 160C (Goodwin and Haine 1998a). It does not work at lower temperatures or shorter periods of time. Spores have also been shown to be killed IN THE LAB using the antiseptics sodium hypochorite or Virkon® (Goodwin and Haine 1998a) and adequate decontamination of hive boxes was achieved in the field following treatment with 1% Virkon® (Hansen and Brødsgaard 1999). Other antiseptics, such as Savlon®, Dettol®, ethanol and methylated spirits are ineffective at killing spores (Goodwin and Haine 1998). Goodwin, R. M. and H. M. Haine. 1998a. Sterilizing beekeeping equipment infected with American foulbrood disease spores. New Zealand Beekeeper. 5: 13. Goodwin, R. M. and H. M. Haine. 1998b. Using paraffin wax and steam chests to sterilize hive parts that have been in contact with American foulbrood disease. New Zealand Beekeeper. 5: 21. Given that dipping in 100C paraffin at 10min did not sterilize AFB, I doubt that boiling for 12min would be effective. As for EFB, I am not sure. If you want to try it, why not set up a small controlled experiment. Sid Pullinger wrote (also several years ago): > I have an old > freezer I use as a fumigation chest, using acetic acid to fumigate against > EFB and nosema. Now, my question is what would be the best methods of treating these frames (radiation and ethylene dioxide and not options here) in view of the information above. Sid, is your acetic acid fumigation for frame treatment when scale is present, or just for prevention? < Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Research Specialist position MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This message was originally submitted by ecapaldi@BUCKNELL.EDU to the BEE-L list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. It was edited to remove HTML formatting. > ------------ Original message (ID=3812B134) (98 lines) -------------- > Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 15:28:39 -0400 > To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu > From: Elizabeth Capaldi > Subject: Research Specialist position > > Research Specialist in Life Sciences > Department of Entomology > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign > > A regular, full-time position as Research Specialist in Life Sciences > is available in the Department of Entomology at the University of > Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The successful candidate will > participate in an established research program studying the > physiology and genetics of honey bee social behavior. Duties will > include: maintaining colonies of honey bees; repairing beekeeping > equipment; constructing specialized research equipment out of wood > and metal; assisting in planning and setting up experiments; > assisting in the collection of behavioral, physiological, and genetic > data in the field and laboratory; and assisting undergraduate and > graduate students in research projects. Applicants should have a > bachelor's degree (preferably in biology or one of the life > sciences), prior experience in the care and rearing of insects > (preferably honey bees), and skills in carpentry, metal-working, and > electronics. Experience in field and/or laboratory research is > desirable. Salary will be commensurate with training and experience > (minimum of $28,000 per year). Please send a resume, three letters > of recommendation, and a letter detailing your experience with honey > bees and explaining why you are interested in this position to: Dr. > Gene E. Robinson, Department of Entomology, University of Illinois, > 320 Morrill Hall, 505 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801, (217) > 265-0309, fax (217) 244-3499, or e-mail generobi@life.uiuc.edu. For > full consideration, applications should be received by October 1, > 2000. Interviews may take place prior to the application deadline; > however, no final decision will be made until after that date. > > The University of Illinois is an Affirmative Action/Equal > Opportunity Employer > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:20:58 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "W. Allen Dick" Subject: Re: cell size debate > Allen Dick says i didn't prove my case. I don't think i did to Allen but I > respect his views and say "we can agree to disagree". I also say to Allen > he didn't prove his case to me. Enough said! I'd like to clarify my position here. I don't have a case to prove. My only interest in this matter is that of a moderator. A moderator's job is to try to ensure balance and, well, moderation. Therefore I have made several posts warning members to do their own research and not to accept uncritically any of the claims being made. I am very concerned about the effect that the posting of opinions and fantasies as if they were facts is having on BEE-L's credibility. I have carefully examined all evidence put before us and concluded that it is flawed and insufficient to support the conclusions being made by some memebers. In trying to substantiate their claims, my own investigations led to data which is in direct conflict with the claims of the proponents of this theory. I was also unable to reach the conclusions they reached from reading the historical documents that they claim supports their case. I have felt obligated to point this out to the list. I don't have to prove anything, since I am not proposing any new hypothesis. The burden of proof is on those who are making the claims. So far they have failed to prove anything. allen ---- FWIW: My personal cell size survey and the results are at http://www.internode.net/honeybee/Misc/CellCount.htm and http://www.internode.net/honeybee/Misc/CellCountResults.htm ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:27:16 -0500 Reply-To: boby@lakecountry.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Young Subject: africanized bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just heard on a Dallas, Texas radio station that africanized bees were found in University Park, an affluent small city centrally located within and totally surrounded by the city of Dallas. There are no open areas, other than city parks, that I know of, and the city is primarily made up very exclusive, older high end neighborhoods. At any rate, Dallas County is now under bee quarantine. I am located 90 miles east and crossing my fingers. I have varroa somewhat under control but I really don't want to deal with africanized bees; IMHO this will drive more people from beekeeping than varroa. Bob Young Lindale,TX ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:59:17 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: SoVerNet Verification (on garnet.sover.net) Prabois from arc2a59.bf.sover.net [209.198.116.188] 209.198.116.188 Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:57:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Huguet - Sumner Subject: one queen cell ? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Question to anyone. I found one of my hives queen and with no brood, not = even any drone cells (from laying workers). So I introduced three frames = of 1-3 day old brood. Now two weeks later I can only find one queen = cell. I always thought they would produce at least a few queen cells? Is = this unique? One more question. I have some Terramycin that is now 3 years old. It = has been stored in my shed over the past two winters. Does age or cold = New England winters have any effect on it's life span? Thanks ! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:35:16 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: one queen cell ? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Huguet - Sumner wrote: > > Question to anyone. I found one of my hives queen and with no brood, not = > even any drone cells (from laying workers). So I introduced three frames = > of 1-3 day old brood. Now two weeks later I can only find one queen = > cell. I always thought they would produce at least a few queen cells? Is = > this unique? No! Maybe the bees only thought the need to draw one queen cell. I have noticed the last few years that when bees swarm the colony remaining hasn't allways raised a queen. I allways blammed the situation on the fact the queen stops laying prior to swarming so thought maybe the bees thought the larva were to old. I really can't say for sure in your case but pointing out a couple possibilites. > > One more question. I have some Terramycin that is now 3 years old. It = > has been stored in my shed over the past two winters. Does age or cold = > New England winters have any effect on it's life span? I think both could. I wouldn't use Terramycin which is past the expire date on package. You said winters . I might wonder more about the heats effect on the package. If worried why take a chance? Bob Harrison > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 23:46:37 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) In-Reply-To: <200009042233.SAA19617@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200009042233.SAA19617@listserv.albany.edu>, crpost writes >One factor not seen in the discussion is the age of the comb. Older comb, >containing many pupal and larval debris, will effectively reduce the inside >dimensions on the cells and, as a result, the size of the bee. I came across an article a few years ago which did an experiment and came up with the conclusion that about 2% reduction is all you get over the years. That suggests the idea that cells get smaller is a myth. Presumably bees either ream the cells out or replace them as needed. Please will people who have measured many cells contribute on this. > The age of those >feral colonies that survive might be a factor. Younger established feral >colonies' cell size might not be small enough yet for them to resist. That is, >assuming cells size is a factor in varroa tolerance. Please note my "speculation" of a few postings ago that feral colonies *if* they are going to reduce cell size should do so extremely quickly as each new generation draws new comb. My own measurements show little reduction if any - many feral colonies show 57mm cells, the same as my foundation. I will continue to measure - and post the results if there is interest. This includes cut comb (from strips) wild comb in colonies on frames, wild comb from swarms and *old* comb from feral colonies cut out from their nest and tied into frames. -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 18:40:04 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: CDC report on pyrethrins and pyrethroids MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The CDC issued a new report in June this year on 97 cases of pesticide poisoning in the food service industry involving pyrethrins and pyrethroids (automated aerial sprays are used to control flying insects). In the editorial note, the authors claim this is the first study to have discovered cardiovascular and neurologic symptoms affiliated with exposure to these pesticides, but it seems only when they are used as an aerial spray, and only immediately after exposure. Three of the cases involved resmethrin. Address is as follows: http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4922a3.htm ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 18:28:57 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dennis Crutchfield Subject: Re: Wax press In-Reply-To: <200008190746.DAA13082@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit : Re: Wax press on 8/18/00 10:07 PM, Bob Young at boby@lakecountry.net wrote: > My idea would be to build one similar to a cider press but using some large > diameter PVC pipe (8" or more) with some holes drilled in it for the body I late as usual in checking the mail, You can buy up to 1 1/2 pvc that is schedule 80 for high pressure that is safe for food, it is used for water lines. No problem. preacher ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 22:37:12 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Paul Cherubini Subject: Re: CDC report on pyrethrins and pyrethroids MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John Mitchell wrote: > > The CDC issued a new report in June this year on 97 cases of pesticide > poisoning in the food service industry involving pyrethrins and pyrethroids > (automated aerial sprays are used to control flying insects). In the > editorial note, the authors claim this is the first study to have discovered > cardiovascular and neurologic symptoms affiliated with exposure to these > pesticides, but it seems only when they are used as an aerial spray, and only > immediately after exposure. Three of the cases involved resmethrin. > Address is as follows: > http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4922a3.htm 97 cases between 1986 and 1999 = only 7 cases per year. This is out of tens, probably hundreds of thousands of applications per year (since there are tens of thousands of automatic pyrethrin aerosol machines installed in restaurants around the country). No one seriously injured - even workers sprayed directly in the eye when servicing the machines. Personally, I think this outstanding safety record should be balanced against who knows how many hundreds or thousands of cases of food poisoning that would be caused by letting flies roam free in restaurants. Paul Cherubini ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 00:04:02 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: Re: one queen cell ? In-Reply-To: <200009051859.OAA17711@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200009051859.OAA17711@listserv.albany.edu>, Huguet - Sumner writes >Question to anyone. I found one of my hives queen and with no brood, not = >even any drone cells (from laying workers). So I introduced three frames = >of 1-3 day old brood. Now two weeks later I can only find one queen = >cell. I always thought they would produce at least a few queen cells? Is = >this unique? No. I have seen it a few times. -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:49:05 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: one queen cell ? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Huguet - Sumner wrote: > > Question to anyone. I found one of my hives queen and with no brood, not = > even any drone cells (from laying workers). So I introduced three frames = > of 1-3 day old brood. Now two weeks later I can only find one queen = > cell. I always thought they would produce at least a few queen cells? Is = > this unique? I think part of what you are seeing is genetic. We have been breeding bees to reduce the tendency to swarm and I think that may be a part of the picture. Other issues are going to be how long the hive was queenless as that will determine the age and population of house bees, the resources comming in from the field force, and what the bees thought of the brood you introduced. A method that was explained to me (I belive it is a modification of the Miller technique of queen rearing) is to put a short piece of foundation into a frame and insert it into the center of a strong hives brood chamber. Feed the colony. In four or five days the bees will have started to draw the foundation and the queen shold have egges in some of the partialy drawn comb. Pull the frame and trim away any wax below the cells with eggs and larvae. Introduce this frame to your queenless colony. Feed the colony. If the colony has been queenless for more than a couple of weeks (no capped brood to be found) then you may want to add a frame of capped brood with clinging nurse bees. The queenless colony should start a number of cells. Your results are going to be determined by the drone population in your area. In the end it is often better to just purchase a new queen and introduce her using a slow release method. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 09:13:48 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: Re: CDC report on pyrethrins and pyrethroids MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In a message dated 9/6/00 12:37:41 AM, cherubini@MINDSPRING.COM writes: << Personally, I think this outstanding safety record should be balanced against who knows how many hundreds or thousands of cases of food poisoning that would be caused by letting flies roam free in restaurants. >> And if people are worried about pyrethroids in their food, they would do much better to monitor the use of automated sprayers in local restaurants, hotels, nursing homes, etc. that squirt pyrethroids every 15 minutes all day long in the kitchen and dining areas to knock down flying insects — than they would do worrying about contamination of honey from Apistan. There are no recorded cases of poisoning from Apistan use in beehives of either beekeepers or honey consumers that I am aware of. If pyrethroids are slipping into the human food chain, the most likely place to start looking is in the sanitation practices in the commercial kitchen. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 09:17:08 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Moderation In-Reply-To: <200009060400.AAA03407@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:00 AM 9/6/00 -0400, Allen wrote: >My only interest in this matter is that of a moderator. A moderator's job >is to try to ensure balance and, well, moderation. I hope people take Allen's word to heart. I recently joined another beekeeping list which is un-moderated and I much prefer to read the moderated list. The general absence of wild theorizing and the effort to be scientific is a relief. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Peter Borst plb6@cornell.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:29:49 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: Moderation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >I hope people take Allen's word to heart. I recently joined another >beekeeping list which is un-moderated and I much prefer to read the >moderated list. The general absence of wild theorizing and the effort to be >scientific is a relief. We all need to be thankful of the work the moderators do for the list. But one small correction can be made to your post, we do not need to be scientific: just informed. Part of that is checking the archives for information before posting and then asking a good question. I have found that the better the question the better the answer. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 13:46:57 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "W. Allen Dick" Subject: Re: worker bee & sizecell size For sake of accuracy, I should mention that on consulting Mark Winston's "The Biology of the Honey Bee", I discovered that the German black bee is apparently bigger, not smaller compared to Italian bees. On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 23:42:49 -0600, Allen Dick wrote: > ...such as the old English bee or the German black bee. These > latter bees are smaller and were popular around the turn of the > 20th century. I don't know what this correction does to my argument, but I do seem to recall that the feral bees in many areas of North America (and Hawaii as well) were known to be smaller and meaner than the bees that were introduced as the century progressed. Maybe someone else has researched this or recalls from reading? What about the English black bees? allen --- A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb, unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served... Updated today. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 20:27:58 +0200 Reply-To: Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jorn Johanesson Subject: News about beekeeping software! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have now performed a heavy revision and bug fix on Bidata and have expanded the queen breeder mode. I got help from a professional programmer , against payment (1500USD), to get this software to perform error free. It has now succeeded in running stable and without errors on my computer for 14 days and all functions have been tested. This edition have taken all my money from my bank account set aside for Apimondia in South Africa, and because I am unemployed and living from work insurance, this will be the last public update from my Hand. Those with big registration will still get information of updates coming. There is following news in the software. If the queen is changed the old queen will be preserved in a special database, so that she can be used in further expansions of the queen breeder mode. If you wish an Automatic generated queen identification will be made. It consist of the following elements. up to four chars in initials followed by a number determining the race of bees. then two numbers determining the year the queen is introduced. then up to a number of 2million as a serial number and then a slash and the number of the hive where the queen first is introduced. Additional can be added the queen line in the form of F00, F001 up to F99. The queen line can be obtained from a dropdown list. This should assure a unique number for all queens. there are space for 99999 queens. and up to 2 billions records in the database so even with a unusual number of hive notes I don't think you will run out of space. A queen number could look like this: JJoh30030-30F00 In my system the number 3 after the initials stands for Buckfast. This number by the way can be obtained from a dropdown list. The queen serial number will be shown both in the queen numbers and a special field (read Only) there can be given up to five drone sources to the queens. By the way the queen breeder input follows the Swedish Queen breeder register card. and all points are included. also is a change made so that when a new bee year starts (a new database is automatic created) a list of queens from last Year will be shown, so that queens still present can be imported to the new Bee Year. I know that a software of this kind always will be a compromise, but I have been concerned of being so all-round as possible. because my financial situation is bad, I will ask you to get the update yourself. http://apimo.dk/programs/bidatawin95_98_update4.exe this will be the last public update if membership of EDBi is not maintained or the software is not paid for otherwise. Best regards Jorn Johanesson EDBi = Multilingual software for beekeeping since 1997 home page = HTTP:\\apimo.dk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:07:51 -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 Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: It's TUCSON, not Tuscon or Tewson or Twoson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Since we have become a subject of interest, how about everybody learning how to spell Tucson ?? Thanks. - John, Tucson {;-)) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:15:15 -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 Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: (no subject)-mite-resistance MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Brenchley wrote: > Allen Dick writes: > > < Others worldwide are finding that in a few generations they can reduce the > varroa > > > This is hopeful news; where can I learn more? If this is true, then > either the bees are developing a degree of resistance, The resistance is there in every population, just as resistance to foulbrood or acarine mites or cold weather or .... The trick is in the selection for the stocks you want. These are not yeasts which mutate under habitat pressure to become more resistant within a few weeks (I'm not even sure that statement is true). - John Edwards, Tucson, Arizona ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:31:35 -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 Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Life in a spermatheca MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ted Hancock wrote: > Can anyone tell me exactly how a spermatheca works? Specifically what > mechanism is used to deliver spermatozoa to the egg? Are several (dozen? > thousand?) squirted on to the egg or is only one spermatozoan released per > egg? If it's more than one, how are the extra done away with when an > unfertilized egg is laid? After eight years of swimming around in a > spermatheca, do the spermatozoa become any less viable? FINALLY, a subject I have actually worked on. The spermatheca seems to store the sperm in a quiescent state - the outer covering of tracheoles, once thought to supply oxygen, was proved by H.K. Poole (and me) to be only a support structure over an impermeable sphere. The sperm are released (by the sperm pump, a small hook-shaped structure on the side of the sptha.) in small groups to fertilize the eggs - I don't know how quickly it can be turned off, but I suspect there is some overlap ( a few fertilized eggs in drone cells, and vice-versa). See the publications of Taber (1950s-1970s), Poole (late 1960s-early 1970s), the Koenigers from Germany, possibly Woyke of Poland. As for eight-year-old sperm and queens, I believe that would be a little optimistic. Two years is do-able, three is pushing it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 18:16:43 -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 Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: worker bee & sizecell size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "W. Allen Dick" wrote: > ...... but I do seem to > recall that the feral bees in many areas of North America (and Hawaii as > well) were known to be smaller and meaner than the bees that were > introduced as the century progressed. > > Maybe someone else has researched this or recalls from reading? Somebody's theory - sorry I forgot the name - Russian ?? - from the early 1900s maintains that many insects within a species naturally vary in regard to the latitude where they are found (and adapted). This fits the size and shape of the AHB from tropical Africa, as I remember. He is usually quoted in relation to body size, wing length, and leg length. I will ask around here tomorrow - I'm sure Hayward Spangler knows the reference. ----------------------------------------------------------- John F. Edwards Carl Hayden Bee Research Center Agricultural Research Service - USDA Tucson, Arizona 85719 http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/home/edwards/edwards.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 18:35:56 -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 Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: African bee/cell size 4.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit darn@FREENET.EDMONTON.AB.CA wrote: > .......Is it possible that one of the reasons that Africanised honey > bees > tend to replace European honeybees is that we give no drone comb to > our bees, resulting in an artificial scarcity of European drones? Steve Taber mentioned back in the 1970s that large colonies in Hawaii had maybe thirty percent drones, and had no problem making tons of honey - he was always an advocate of letting the bees build in patches of free-style come for drones. ----------------------------------------------------------- John F. Edwards Biological Lab. Technician "Feral Bee Tracker and AHB Identifier" Tucson, Arizona 85719 http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/home/edwards/edwards.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 14:55:30 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: what fraction drones? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" John F. Edwards Biological Lab. Technician "Feral Bee Tracker and AHB Identifier" wrote: >Steve Taber mentioned back in the 1970s that large colonies in Hawaii had >maybe thirty percent drones, and had no problem making tons of honey - he >was always an advocate of letting the bees build in patches of free-style >comb for drones. The question of whether to limit the amount of drone comb, in attempt to limit the fraction of drones in the hive, has arisen in New Zealand's varroa emergency. I see no basis for preferring any arrangement above what the bees themselves arrange. What theory could justify such an intervention? It may seem far-fetched to those who wish to evade the political realities of the day, but we can expect truculent male-haters of our species to project that antagonism onto the innocent bee species. The stated theoretical basis is that varroa breed mainly in drone brood and therefore if we artificially restrict the amount of drone brood to some arbitrary limit we will limit the varroa population. Is this a well-founded hypothesis? R - Robt Mann consultant ecologist P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:43:24 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: Africanized bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I came across the following in the Los Angeles Times written by master-gardener-in-training Harold Pope of Irvine, CA. If it's accurate, it seems a thorough list for avoiding with Africanized bees. Africanized honeybees establish colonies in small cavities and protected areas that would not ordinarily be used by domesticated European honeybees, so their nests may be encountered in unexpected places. Colonies have been found in holes in trees, the space between the walls or buildings, underneath foundations, in sheds, in drain pipes, water-meter valve boxes, abandoned appliances, holes in the ground, piles of junk, flower pots stored upside down, piles of rocks, underneath picnic tables and even in old tires. In wild areas, there may be as many as 10 to 20 colonies per square mile. To avoid unpleasant encounters, prevent the establishment of colonies near your house or garden. Fill in cracks and crevices around your house with steel wool or caulk. Cover openings greater than an eighth-inch in walls and c himneys by installing eighth-inch screens. Also cover drain-pipe openings with screen. Remove junk, rock piles and wood piles. Fill holes in the ground and in water-meter valve boxes. Secure doors to outside utility closets and sheds. Be on the lookout for unusual bee signs. Watch for bees coming and going from a crack or a hole, and listen for a loud buzzing sound that may indicate the presence of a colony. Examine areas where you plan to use power equipment and inspect the area around campsites and picnic tables. Stay aware of your environment when hiking. Often, but not always, serious stinging incidents start with provocation such as a stone tossed at a colony, the vibration of power equipment or attempts to spray bees with water, an aerosol insecticide or other chemicals. Don't try it, and teach your children not to try it. When walking, keep pets on a leash so they do not accidentally come upon a colony. If you discover a bee swarm or believe you have discovered a colony, stay away from it. According to entomologist Nick Nisson with the California State Agricultural Commission, there are no public agencies in Orange County that remove bee swarms or colonies from private property. If you require bee removal, you'll need to contact a commercial beekeeper or pest-control company. In other counties, public assistance may be available through vector-control authorities. Los Angeles County has an Africanized honeybee emergency line at (800) 233-9279. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:50:22 +1200 Reply-To: peter@airborne.co.nz Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Bray Organization: Airborne Honey Ltd. Subject: Re: EFB sterilization In-Reply-To: <200009051539.LAA10245@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Correct, it does not form spores. Why it is not killed by 8kGy of gamma > irradition is also a mystery. Being in spring pollination, I can see why > you are concerned, as the disease is typically only a problem where > management necessitiates moving colonies from pollen rich spring yards, > into stressful, pollen poor pollination yards. Perhaps pollen patties > prior to and going into pollination may help the colony keep pace with the > disease? Here in New Zealand, we don't have EFB. Because of this, we have been aware of a "disease" (referred to as Half Mood Disorder - HMD) that has similar symptoms to EFB. Nowhere else in the World was this "disease" truly documented. The fix for this "disease" was to "put on good conditions and requeen", i.e. much the same as found in many countries' Ag bulletins for the control of EFB. It took Dennis Anderson from Australia to spend some time on this topic both here and in Australia to solve this mystery. I believe that because other countries have EFB, anything with symptoms showing lemon/creamy larvae climbing out of the cells apparently starving, is considered EFB - and the normal treatment is applied i.e. put on good conditions, requeen etc. and if that doesn't work, feed an antibiotic (if of course antibiotics are not already being fed). Without EFB here, (i.e. Strep P. the known causative organism could never be isolated) we had to find another explaination for these symptoms. What Dennis found is that HMD is a nutritional problem of the virgin queens, probably at the time of feeding after emergence and prior to mating. This poor nutrition produces queens that have problems laying fertilized eggs and may in fact show up drone laying. The larvae are not fed properly and end up *starving* - i.e. their death has the same symptoms as EFB because they starve from lack of food whereas EFB infected larvae starve due to the bacteria in their gut overwhelming their ability to absorb food. I.e. in the field it is imposible to tell the difference between EFB and HMD from the symptoms of the larvae. However one of the key symptoms of HMD is multiple eggs in the same cell (or even around the entrance to the cell) and eggs at odd angles. Next time you see "EFB", look for multiple eggs (even only 2) per cell. If you find that, chances are you actually have HMD. Because Dennis isolated this disorder to Virgin nutrition, it is reasonable to assume that it is as common elsewhere in the World as it is in New Zealand. He went on to indicate that the cause of this nutrition problem was likely to be the age of nurse bees in mating nucleii. Those at risk were small nucs that regularly had mated queens taken out without a cycle of brood coming on to provide nurse bees of the optimal age. If true, it's easy to see why requeening has been considered such a fix for "EFB". Also the reference to "good conditions" as a treatment may mean that larvae that did not get fed under dearth conditions, now get fed. I personally think it's possible the only "true" EFB out there is the stuff that has to be treated with antibiotics to cure. And following on from that, half of the treatment program for "EFB" is actually for HMD. Peter Bray _________________________________________________________ Airborne Honey Ltd., PO Box 28, Leeston, New Zealand Fax 64-3-324-3236, Phone 64-3-324-3569 www.airborne.co.nz peter@airborne.co.nz ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 04:54:43 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Michael Housel Subject: Re: Africanized bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 09/06/2000 11:20:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JMitc1014@AOL.COM writes: << Colonies have been found in holes in trees, the space between the walls or buildings, underneath foundations, in sheds, in drain pipes, water-meter valve boxes, abandoned appliances, holes in the ground, piles of junk, flower pots stored upside down, piles of rocks, underneath picnic tables and even in old tires. >> I have been removing feral hives for years (until the beetles hit). The places listed in your message and a bunch more are the normal area. We don't have rock piles here but other than that it is not abnormal. When the small hive beetles came thur the area they drove the feral hives from their nest and most died out. If I am called now the hive is usually outside the hive entrance like a beard. There maybe 5 to 10 small beards and they are very weak. No, African hives here, yet. Michael Housel Hoping that the Drones will still be part of the family. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 14:06:49 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: FW: No of varroa mites in hive MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: No of varroa mites in hive From: beekeeper2000@my-deja.com Date: 2000/09/03 Newsgroups: Sci.agriculture.beekeeping I have been viewing recent postings to this group and saw one on the number of mites in a hive and when to treat accordingly. Go to http://www.furnessbeekeepers.fsnet.co.uk and link to 'varroa calulator'. This gives an estimated total number of mites in the hive from the actual number dropped in a 24 hour period. The table is based on the MAFF calulator distribtued to UK beekeepers. HTH Jonty ------ You can view this message and the related discussion by following this link: http://www.deja.com/thread/%3c8otgnp$2qd$2@nnrp1.deja.com%3e%231/1 We hope to see you soon at Deja.com. Before you buy. http://www.deja.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 07:51:20 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: what fraction drones? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Robt Mann asks: > ... if we artificially restrict the amount of drone > brood to some arbitrary limit we will limit the varroa population. > Is this a well-founded hypothesis? I have not done so (artificially restrict the amount of drone brood to some arbitrary limit) so I cannot assuredly say. But I speculate not. When fall sets in in these parts (upstate NY) the bees restrict the amount of drone brood on their own. At that time, when there simply isn't enough drone brood to satisfy their hunger, varroa begin to target worker brood. A shortage of drone brood does not create a shortage of varroa. I suspect there would be a similar effect (varroa will target worker brood) if drone brood were artificially restricted. Aaron Morris - thinking artificially short! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 07:51:03 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: darn@FREENET.EDMONTON.AB.CA Subject: Re: what fraction drones? In-Reply-To: <200009071213.IAA17419@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Aaron Morris wrote: > I have not done so (artificially restrict the amount of drone brood to some > arbitrary limit) Hi Aaron: When I started beekeeping about 25 years ago I bought foundation that was all worker size. I have continued to replace bad (misshapen combs with big patches of drone cells and broken combs) with nice new worker foundation. The result of course is mostly worker brood, which was always thought of as desirable. If bees normally produce 30% drone cells this has been a pretty artificial restriction in drone brood, even though that was not a deliberate goal. Best regards, Donald Aitken Edmonton Alberta Canada ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:47:48 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Pollination Beekeeper Listings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Bee List friends, The pollination season is winding down in the northern hemisphere, just starting in the southern. I would be highly appreciative of some feedback on the pollination list. To my knowledge this is the only list in the world that attempts to be comprehensive, and it takes quite a bit of work. There have been a number of new entries lately. But what I'd like to know is: Is it working? Have any of you been contacted by growers, because you had a listing here? What has been your experience, pro and con? What would you suggest to improve the service (without spending a lot of money that I don't have)? For anyone who is mystified by this, the list is at: http://pollinator.com/polbkprs.htm It is a worldwide list of beekeepers who provide pollination service, and it has been frequently brought to the attention of grower groups that may require pollination service. In May, this list was averaging over 1000 hits per day (the counter apparently only counts hits on the index page), but I have not gotten a lot of feedback otherwise. Thank you. Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:24:09 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: FAO Initiative on Pollination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Those who are seriously interested in crop pollination may want to join the mailing list, or contribute to the new United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) Plant Production and Protection Division (AGP), in consultation with FAO's Biodiversity Working Group The worldwide decline in pollinators has attracted attention and a project has begun to study and enhance pollination systems, as a part of the efforts to build sustainable agriculture systems throughout the world. Part of these projects include a newsletter, PollenBytes, and an interactive database of pollinator/plant info. For more details and information on how to sign up, go to http://pollinator.com/polnews.htm I hope some of our group with real "hands-on" experience in commercial pollination will get involved here. Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:08:19 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Bee-L MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick and Al Lipscomb have recently made valuable contributions concerning the moderation of the list. Frankly, I have some concerns. Back "in the old days", I was ready to quit the list because of the lack of any moderation. Particularly irritating were some of the flames and a prolonged colloquy (several messages over several days) concerning religious beliefs and beekeeping. Therefore, I was very pleased when the messages started to be moderated. During the 2+ years that the list has been moderated I have seen some comment to the effect that this is supposed to be an "informed discussion", and therefore not open to beginning-beekeeper kind of questions. Some have said that beginning-beekeeper type questions should be rejected if the moderator is aware that those questions have been addressed in the past and are therefore available in the archives. Personally, I disagree with both premises and have been told by several beekeepers that they have left the list because their questions were apparently considered too elementary to be posted. I hope that this impression is incorrect. I believe that any question should be allowed through, although it is certainly appropriate for members to point out that a search of the archives could have provided answers, should they wish to do so. IMHO, we should not consider ourselves an elite group and above addressing basic issues. A search of the archives on such questions will often bring dozens or hundreds of responses and narrowing the question to winnow the responses may be beyond the capability of one asking such basic questions. Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. www.rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:10:12 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Your web site: Is it pollination related? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You may wish to submit a link for consideration at The Pollination Home Page, if you have a beekeeping site with quality pollination information. The pollination page is being revamped, enlarged and made searchable. It is our intention to be a portal site of pollination information. In the past, we've had a strong bias toward sites that specifically related to pollination, as opposed to general beekeeping knowledge. Beekeeping links were mostly on a single page, limited to a few large sites that had a lot of helpful resources for beginner beekeepers. We going to relax that bias somewhat, but not remove it entirely. We also have a bias of informative sites as against commercial ones (except for products that are specifically pollination related). In other words, if your site is only to sell beekeeping supplies, forget it. If you have a lot of information available to help others, in addition to your selling area, then give it a try. If this information relates specifically to pollination beekeeping, then you really have our interest. We will review all suggested links. Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com (now searcheable) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:40:50 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: HStarJE@AOL.COM Subject: Set-down method MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is there anyone using the "set-down" (?) method of removing bees from supers on a large scale? I know there is someone with a fairly large operation in Canada who pulls supers and sets them on the ground overnight to remove the bees. I am interested in the learning the finer points of this technique if it is practical. Cesar Flores Colorado ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:45:33 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: Set-down method MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit HStarJE@AOL.COM wrote: > > Is there anyone using the "set-down" (?) method of removing bees from supers > on a large scale? > > I know there is someone with a fairly large operation in Canada who pulls > supers and sets them on the ground overnight to remove the bees. > > I am interested in the learning the finer points of this technique if it is > practical. Hello Cesar, We used to use the technigue quite a bit when we pulled supers in late fall. Grab supers off and carry about 20 feet away and sit on end. If honey is sealed and getting dark the bees leave the supers to return to hives. Similar to opening the honey house door and letting the bees return to the hives at night. We never would use the technique if there was unsealed honey in supers as robbing allways started. In cooler weather the fume boards are slow so when we thought everything was perfect we would use the method. I prefer the fume boards as i have had robbing start. Then we pull all lids and usually will stop enough robbing to load the supers. We use "Bee go" in Missouri but my northern friends say "honey robber" will work better than "bee go" in colder temps. I have never used "honey robber" so can't say if they are correct. Maybe other bee-L readers can help? Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:32:02 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: Africanized bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Harold Pope of Irving,CA. wrote: > > Colonies have been found in holes in trees, the space between the walls or > buildings, underneath foundations, in sheds, in drain pipes, water-meter > valve boxes, abandoned appliances, holes in the ground, piles of junk, flower > pots stored upside down, piles of rocks, underneath picnic tables and even in > old tires. > > In wild areas, there may be as many as 10 to 20 colonies per square mile.. > > If you discover a bee swarm or believe you have discovered a colony, stay > away from it. According to entomologist Nick Nisson with the California State > Agricultural Commission, there are no public agencies in Orange County that > remove bee swarms or colonies from private property. If you require bee > removal, you'll need to contact a commercial beekeeper or pest-control > company. >Hello All, The part about contacting a commercial beekeeper is the best the authorities can come up. I don't know of one commercial beekeeper which provides AHB removel. None of the Kansas City pest control people remove bees. I have thought about the problem quite a bit and do not have the answer. Maybe bee-l discussion might provide the solution. I had a guy the other day stop by my office. He said he had a swarm of bumble bees in his field where he wanted to run fence and wanted me to come right away. What do you say to these people? Your post could be a wake up call for many. Goes along with what i have read and been told by "owners" of African bees. Illegal to keep Africanised bees in Missouri and remain to be shown they will outproduce European bees with all the AHB swarming,after swarming and abscounding. The above is fuel for my crusade to get A. cerana imported into the U.S.. A.cerana will not cross with AHB. A.cerana is not effected by varroa mites. If AHB genes for aggressive behavier are dominate then are we all supposed to look forward to aggressive bees,swarming and abscounding when our bees become africanised. Granted many beekeepers have put AHB on the back burner to worry about at a later date because of the slow movement north. As any researcher came up with the reason AHB progress has dropped from 300 miles per year to ????? Sincerely, Bob Harrison > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 19:02:13 +0100 Reply-To: joe@golberdon.prestel.co.uk Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Joe Hemmens Subject: Re: FW: No of varroa mites in hive (Varroa Calculator) In-Reply-To: <200009071153.HAA16671@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi, The following message was recently forwarded - > I have been viewing recent postings to this group and saw one on the > number of mites in a hive and when to treat accordingly. > > Go to http://www.furnessbeekeepers.fsnet.co.uk and link to 'varroa > calulator'. > > This gives an estimated total number of mites in the hive from the > actual number dropped in a 24 hour period. > > The table is based on the MAFF calulator distribtued to UK beekeepers. > > HTH > > Jonty The research undertaken by Dr. Martin is interesting and no doubt adds to the knowledge base. As a paid-up member of the cynics-club I suspect that the Varroa Calculator was a way of justifying the cost of the research (paid for by beekeepers in the UK). I also believe that the Varroa Calculator has no practical use for the beekeeper whatsoever. When Varroa arrived in this part of the world the recommendation was that if you had Varroa - treat for it. As a consequence, within a couple of years, beekeepers reported being hardly able to find a mite and 'beekeeping life' returned to normal. Of course the mites were still there but in relatively low numbers. Dr. Martin's Varroa Calculator held out the promise that one only had to treat once infestation levels rose above the 'economic threshold'. Actually I don't know if Dr. M. actually used that particular expression but the phrase has often been used by the Varroa Calculator adherents. Although Dr. Martin's conclusions were propped by a raft of earlier results his work used no more than 30-40 colonies. I'm afraid I no-longer have the exact figures because his paper along with the Calculator were consigned to land-fill many months ago. DARG (Devon Apicultural Research Group) undertook a project to evaluate the efficacy of an essential oil based Varroacide some years ago. The point here is not the results of the trial (which are still on the www somewhere if anyone is interested) but the data which was collected. The trial required a pre-application measurement of 'natural mortality' for 7 or more days, some beekeepers undertook daily counts for several months prior to the trial (Spring to Autumn/Fall), and a measurement of 'total' infestation after the application of Bayverol/Apistan at the end of the season. Of course the 'total' was an estimate based on the efficiency of pyrethroid treatments (then apparently 98-99%). I still have the data on floppy disk somewhere (I hope!) and have spent many an hour looking at them in the light of the Varroa Calculator. My conclusions are: Natural mortality (especially when averaged over just a few days) is an extremely poor predictor of colony infestation, varying by a factor of 1:10. In other words, two colonies might both show a daily drop from natural mortality of 1, yet one colony might have an infestation level of 100 mites and the second 1000. Natural mortality can vary by a factor of 3 from one week to another. The Varroa calculator is calibrated in months. In other words a colony might show a drop of say 2 per day averaged over 7 days yet the next week might show a drop of 6 per day the very next week (within the same month). Either of these two factors alone would suggest that the Varroa Calculator is well nigh useless. Because of the data collected by DARG members (over 250,000 mites were counted) it is possible to apply the Varroa Calculator retrospectively. The results confirm my previous points. Joe Hemmens ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:26:02 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Set-down method In-Reply-To: <200009071646.MAA25604@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Is there anyone using the "set-down" (?) method of removing bees from supers > on a large scale? We use it exclusively and I document it fairly completely under the Friday July 28th entry at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/Diary072200.htm there are links there to the BEE-L archive articles on the topic which are quite exhaustive. FWIW, in our discussions, the term 'abandonment' is used and the word 'abandon' is an appropriate key to use in searches. allen --- A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb, unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:25:38 -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 Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Mea Culpa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All: I have been advised that I have been mistaken in several of my recent emails, and wish to correct these posts: (1) There has been no published study showing an inherent resistance to varroa in africanized honey bee colonies; (2) There are no published reports showing africanization of any managed colonies in Arizona. - If I have given any impressions to the contrary, I was wrong. - Links to several papers published by this lab are at the bottom of this posting. --------------------------- John F. Edwards Biological Lab. Technician Carl Hayden Bee Research Center Tucson, Arizona 85719 http://198.22.133.109/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 20:20:49 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: new invention to detect mites Hello all, A most interesting piece of equipment for mite detection is wrote about in the September issue of the American Bee Journal under Apicultural Research. "A Rapid Field and Laboratory Method to detect Varroa jacobsoni in the honey Bee(Apis mellifera)" by Kamran Fakimzadeh The device was invented by the Dept. of Applied Zoology, University of Helsinki-Finland. In short the makers claim for detection of Varroa quote: The qualitive detection efficiency(% detected in infested samples)is 100%for the infestation level above three persent(n=93). Even at one percent infestation level the efficiency is more than 85%. comment: I am impressed! When compared to ether roll which is 35% for infestation levels of three percent the invention is a big improvement. I found most interesting that the device was tested in the USA for the detection of Acarapis Woodi,incooperation with the USDA,Iowa State University and Dadant and sons inc. quote: However the detection method for the internal mite is still under investigation and is out of the scope of this article. comment: A field test for tracheal mite is beyond the scope of even my active imagination! Please read the article and comment. In closing i will quote the last paragraph: I dedicate this Finnish invention to beekeepers and apiary inspectors and encourage mass production of the device and wil answer all communication if more information is required.Farmcomp Ltd. in Espoo,Finland is a potential producer of the device and able to produce a few handmade devices at high costs or volume production if needed. comment: Are there any bee-l people with information on the above device? Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 21:30:39 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: Apicure in Hello all, I called Mid-Con Agrimarketing Olathe,Kansas today and Apicure is in BUT they will not reship. I plan to try the apicure. The long range forcast with the weather people is for a warmer than usual fall and winter. Maybe we should get out our heavy coats! Kidding! On a serious note all people thinking of using the apicure should contact their outlet to see if they will ship. I was cought off gaurd so am making plans for a pickup. The coumaphous worked great for me but i think we should alternate and also support BetterBee and Dr. Shiminuki for getting us another tool in the battle with varroa. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa,Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 20:36:06 -0500 Reply-To: dehenry@mb.sympatico.ca Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Doug Henry Subject: Re: Set-down method MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have 12 hives and use this method successfully when the honey flow is on. I can remove supers around 1000 hrs and go back and collect them around 1600 hrs and they will be completed vacated by bees. This method ceases to work about mid-august where I live. Robbing becomes a problem and one has to use escape boards or a bee blower after that time. Doug Henry Lockport Manitoba HStarJE@AOL.COM wrote: > Is there anyone using the "set-down" (?) method of removing bees from supers > on a large scale? > >