From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Jan 14 07:55:35 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 HAA05155 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:55:33 -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 HAA00231 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:58:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101141258.HAA00231@listserv.albany.edu> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:58:29 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8d)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0011A" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Content-Length: 119400 Lines: 2609 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:46:54 +0100 Reply-To: Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jorn Johanesson Subject: Apimondia new dates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Source president for Apimondia Asger Soegaard Joergensen who is also beekeeping consultant in Denmark E-Mail asj@krl.dk The Apimondia Congress has moved to 28. October - 1. November 2001. Still in Durban South Africa reason is that South Africa is elected as host for a world conference against racism, discrimination and fear of strangers in Durban 17/8 to 10/9 2001. it gave a time conflict so Apimondia decided to move to another date, though still in South Africa. Best regards Jorn Johanesson Multilingual software for beekeeping since 1997 hive note- queen breeding and handheld computer beekeeping software full revised and bug tested 20-09-200 home page = HTTP://apimo.dk e-mail Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:39:48 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Barta, Adrian DATCP" Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dave Hamilton wrote: > I would like to start some discussion of Marla Spivik's > article in ABJ. She > advocates periodic replacing frames and not using > prophylactic treatments > with Terramycin. I was glad to see Dr. Spivak's suggestions in ABJ. Resistance management is a battle the rest of agriculture has been waging for some time. We beekeepers are just now joining the fray; perhaps we can avoid some of the problems other farmers have suffered. It seems clear from other systems that exclusive dependence on chemical control is not sustainable. All chemicals will fail, sooner or later. With judicious use, we can slow the development of resistance, but that means minimal, targeted use. In apples, for example, it's usually assumed that you can use a new fungicide 20 times in an orchard before you begin to see resistance--growers can decide if they want to use it five times a year for four years, or twice a year for ten years and fill in with other chemicals. The New Zealanders have made due for years without Terramycin. Good information on their approach is available at http://www.beekeeping.co.nz/disease/index.htm Aggressive inspection and rigorous cleanliness seem to be the basis of their efforts. Perhaps someone from there could comment? This approach, along with hygienic queens and routine comb replacement (as Dave Hamilton suggested), should go a long way toward reducing AFB. The worst possible response to Terramycin-resistant AFB is one I've had people admit to me--non-labeled chemicals. You think the Alar incident damaged the apple market? Wait until the tylosin scare hits the honey market. (Though it might do my cut comb sales some good....) An integrated approach using a number of techniques will allow us to prevent losses from pests while extending the useful life of our chemical control measures. Beekeeping survived before Terramycin; we'll probably make it after Terramycin. Adrian ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:01:31 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain > It seems clear from other systems that exclusive dependence > on chemical > control is not sustainable. All chemicals will fail, sooner > or later. With > judicious use, we can slow the development of resistance, but > that means > minimal, targeted use. In apples, for example, it's usually > assumed that > you can use a new fungicide 20 times in an orchard before you > begin to see > resistance--growers can decide if they want to use it five > times a year for > four years, or twice a year for ten years and fill in with > other chemicals. > [cut] > > The worst possible response to Terramycin-resistant AFB is > one I've had > people admit to me--non-labeled chemicals. You think the > Alar incident > damaged the apple market? Wait until the tylosin scare hits the honey > market. (Though it might do my cut comb sales some good....) > As far as I know, in the United States there is exactly one chemical available for AFB, the above mentioned Terramycin. In the example of the Apple growers we do not see an agressive move to stop using fungicide treatments, but to rotate them. Don't misunderstand me on this, if non-chemical treatments can help reduce the need of chemical treatments then bring them in. What I would like to see is additional approved chemical treatments to allow rotation and reduce resistance. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:16:08 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Hamilton Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I think the change is more mental than chemical. We have to learn to recognize AFB, check often then treat. Too often it has been presented as something you must do twice each fall so that you don't get AFB. New beekeepers are taught this is a danger instead of a problem to be solved. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:16:05 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: FW: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Wait until the tylosin scare ... > hits the honey > As far as I know, in the United States there is exactly one chemical > available for AFB, the above mentioned Terramycin. >From a reputable, recently retired source: Expect tylosin to be approved for AFB treatment in beehives within a year or two. Aaron Morris - I think, therefore I bee! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:01:13 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: New whitewash reduces pesticide use MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A whitewash made from clay (yup, clay!) may improve the possibilities of organic fruit production. At least is has the potential to greatly reduce pesticide use, because it makes a physical barrier for insects. It also protects fruit from damaging spectra of light, can serve as a frost barrier and has many other advantages that are yet unexplored. Best of all, it's nontoxic (some of the pills you take have kaolin clay as a base). I expect it should be nontoxic to bees. The full story: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov00/white1100.htm Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:50:39 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Kim Flottum, Editor Bee Culture" Subject: Whitewashed and returned... In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit An interesting thought on this clay application...it is similar in particle size to talcum powder, and some pollens. Will it be easily removed by bees and returned to the hive? Bees collect substances that are similar in size to pollen that are not pollen...every experienced beekeeper has observed this behavior in sawdust piles and bird feeders. Food for thought, and maybe for larvae honey bees? Kim Flottum Editor, Bee Culture Magazine 1-800-289-7668 x3214 623 W. Liberty St. Medina OH 44256 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:39:47 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All ----- Original Message ----- From: Barta, Adrian Here in UK we have a destruction policy for AFB, absolutely no exceptions...There are many of us here that think this policy should be extended to EFB as well. Marla Spivak has some very interesting information and ideas that some of us in UK are trying to propagate (she is also better looking than many of our UK lecturers!). We are not against chemicals per se but we have some bee breeders that have a head start in selecting for hygenic behaviour. If that results in less chemical use, all well and good. Best Regards, Dave Cushman G8MZY Email: dave.cushman@lineone.net Website...Beekeeping and Bee Breeding http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:03:20 -0700 Reply-To: jslavett@worldnet.att.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jeffrey Lavett Subject: Re: Producing Propolis MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My experience indicates this. My first queen came from a different source than the 20 packages installed the second year of keeping bees. Second source colonies all showed a much greater amount of propolis than the first colony, although they, too, varied amongst themselves in this respect. The first queen's daughter, granddaughter, etc. each showed increasing propensity for propolis until, now, the great-great grandaughters' colony shows fully as much propolis as any of the second source queens. CSlade777@AOL.COM wrote: > > There seems to be a genetic component in the propensity to collect propolis. > I have one hive in an apiary of 5 that is collecting far more than all the > rest put together with no apparent reason. > > Chris Slade ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:55:01 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dan hendricks Subject: TM in honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, List. Will someone please direct me to the research report which quantifies the amount of terramycin which has been detected in honey intended for extraction (or comb intended for human consumption) when the TM has been applied in patties or dust (not syrup)? I have been trying without success to catch my bees storing crisco above the queen excluder. Dan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? >From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. http://experts.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 11:27:30 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: fw: GM crop - bee disease link etc. Comments: To: NZNBAList@egroups.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" GM crop - bee disease link etc. Originated from: ngin@icsenglish.com Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin) http://members.tripod.com/~ngin --- 1. Bee disease - GM crop connection possible 2. Testimony with more detail on GMO and bees --- Looking at the issue of GMOs and bees in general and more specifically a possible connection between the US, Canada, on the one hand, and Argentina, on the other, involving (a) the widespread and recent cultivation of GM crops containing tetracycline resistant genes and (b) the sudden simultaneous emergence of tetracycline resistance in bees in these two geographically isolated areas, resulting in disease devastation of bee colonies that had previously been easily treatable against the world's mosty dangerous bee disease. --- 1. Bee disease - GM crop connection possible http://www.biotech-info.net/bee_j_editorial.html "Letter to the editors of bee journals" Joe Rowland Commercial Beekeeper Secretary/Treasurer of the Empire State (New York) Honey Producers Association October 2000 AFB - GM crop connection possible Dear Editor, The New York State Legislature has been considering enactment of a moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops, and/or requiring labeling of products containing GM ingredients. State legislative committees held public hearings on this subject during October 2000. I was invited to testify at these hearings. Although I am no authority on the topic, I decided to review publicly available information pertaining to the possible impact of GM crops on honeybees, and present this material at the hearing. I identified three main areas of concern. 1.There is an alarming lack of publicly available information evaluating the effects of GM crops on bees. Biotechnology corporations fund research on GM crops in their efforts to gain regulatory approval for the marketing of GM varieties of corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, and other crops. This research supposedly proves beyond a reasonable doubt that these novel genetic combinations are safe to introduce into the environment. Canadian researcher, Mark Winston, recently attempted to gain access to the results of research that assessed the effects of GM crops on honeybees. Canadian government authorities acknowledged that such research had been conducted, but refused to provide any details. Their refusal was attributed to the fact that such research is confidential and owned by the undisclosed biotechnology corporations who funded the studies in question. I believe FDA/EPA policy is similar in this regard. This lack of openness raises serious credibility issues regarding corporate claims about the safety of GM crops. If their research is solid, then why is it kept secret? 2.Laboratory studies carried out by the French government research institute INRA indicate that pollen from some GM crops shortens the lifespan of adult bees. Also, it seems to cause some learning dysfunctions that could result in the disorientation of foraging bees. Disoriented bees may become lost or unable to locate nectar sources. 3.Possibly the most important public disclosure came out in June, 2000, when German researchers at Jena University showed that genetic material from GM canola crossed the species barrier, and was positively identified in bacteria that reside in the guts of honeybees. I believe this is the first publicly documented case of horizontal gene transfer from GM crops to bacteria. This discovery may have major implications for the future of GM crops. One main objection to GM crops has focused on the fact that during genetic manipulations required to create GMOs, antibiotic-resistant "marker" genes are combined with the so-called genes of interest. These combined genes are inserted into the target plant. Within the plant, the antibiotic resistant gene has no expression and is harmless. However, if this gene were able to transfer from the GM plant and enter another bacterium, that bacterium would become antibiotic-resistant. This might render commonly used antibiotics useless against diseases attacking humans and livestock, including honeybees. Bees in the US are increasingly afflicted with a strain of antibiotic resistant American foulbrood (AFB). Before the advent of antibiotics, this bacterial infection was the most serious bee disease in the world. Tetracycline had been used effectively against AFB for 40 years until 1996. In that year, tetracycline resistance was confirmed in both Argentina and the upper Midwestern states of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Since then, it has spread to at least 17 states in the US, including New York, and to parts of Canada. During the 1990s, millions of acres of Round-up Ready crops were planted in the US, Canada, and Argentina. According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was resistant to tetracycline. After 40 years of effective usage against an infective bacterium found in the guts of honeybees, suddenly two geographically isolated countries develop tetracycline resistance simultaneously. A common thread between the US, Canada and Argentina is the widespread and recent cultivation of GM crops containing tetracycline resistant genes. I spoke about this with Dr. Hachiro Shimanuki, who until recently was the research leader of the USDA/ARS bee research lab in Beltsville, MD. He is not aware of any attempt to analyze the resistant foulbrood for genetic pollution from GM crops. I think that the technology exists to be able to determine whether these AFB bacteria have the Round-up Ready gene. That gene should have tagged along with the tetracycline resistant gene if in fact this antibiotic resistant AFB was due to horizontal gene transfer between GM crops and foulbrood bacteria. I want to stress the speculative nature of this possible GMO/antibiotic resistant AFB connection. However, if it is true, the public health implications are enormous. A documented antibiotic resistant gene transfer into a disease organism would strongly indicate that the FDA should re-assess the potential human risks associated with GM crops, and possibly revoke federal approval for the sale and consumption of some of these modified plants. As an industry, I think we should immediately request, through our local, state, and national associations, that the FDA analyze samples of antibiotic resistant AFB in order to determine whether or not a genetic transfer has occurred from GM crops. If we act together, the FDA will find our combined resolutions to be a powerful stimulus to investigate this matter in a timely fashion. Biotech corporations have maintained that we should trust their research findings that secretly prove to Federal regulators that GM crops are safe. I would suggest that it would be wise to maintain a healthy skepticism on this matter. Often there is a fundamental conflict between the corporate interest in short-term profit, and the public interest in the health and safety of the people. In fact, we have recently seen examples of this conflict exposed in the courts concerning other corporations. I believe that we all are now participating in a vast GMO experiment without our informed consent. Many European beekeepers are fiercely opposed to the cultivation of GM crops in the vicinity of their apiaries. It is well within the realm of possibility that we should be too. Sincerely, Joe Rowland 2495, Montrose Turnpike, Owego,NY 13827 --- 2. GMO testimony Submitted by Joe Rowland to the N.Y. Assembly standing committees on agriculture, consumer affairs and the assembly task force on food, farm, and nutrition policy October 3, 2000 Thank-you for inviting me to testify on the subject of genetically modified organisms. I'm a commercial beekeeper, and the secretary/treasurer of the Empire State Honey Producers Association. I also sit on the executive committee of U.S. Beekeepers, a national trade association. Honeybees are an important component of our agricultural economy. Many crops are dependent on honeybee pollination for cost effective production. A recently published Cornell study set the honeybee's value to U.S. agriculture at 14.6 billion dollars. An additional value accrues to home gardeners and wildlife who forage on wild seeds and fruit set as a result of bee pollination. Over ? of the 3 million colonies kept in the U.S. are now trucked around the country for the purpose of pollinating our crops. Thousands of colonies are moved into N.Y. every year and provide a valuable service to N.Y. farmers and consumers. Sadly, bees and beekeepers have had a rough time recently. We must contend with 3 exotic pests introduced over the past 15 years. The wholesale price of honey in inflation-adjusted dollars is lower than at any time since World War II. There also has been a resurgence of American Foulbrood, which had been successfully controlled by antibiotics in the past. Are GMO's a real or potential threat to honeybees? I've tried to answer this question by searching for publicly available research on the subject and by drawing on my own knowledge of honeybee biology. Honeybees collect and consume nectar and pollen. Nectar is a complex sugar solution which provides carbohydrates. There is very little protein from forage plants in nectar. Since GM plants generally express their special characteristics in the form of biologically active proteins, there is probably not much danger to bees from nectar. Pollen is their protein source, and when collected from GM crops, contains the modified gene structure of the GMO. It may also contain novel proteins produced by the modified plant. Pollen is the male fertilizing component of flowering plants and so is a concentrated source of genetic material. Damaging effects to bees from GMO's are most likely to result from pollen. A colony of honeybees will collect and consume approximately 75 lbs of pollen in a year. Corn, canola, soybeans, and cotton yield pollen that is collected by bees within foraging range of these crops. All of these crops have GM varieties which are extensively cultivated in the U.S. Field tests in England have shown that bee colonies 4.5 km from GM canola fields collect GM pollen. Bees forage in all directions, and pollen grains are transferred between bees within the colony through bodily contact. It is theoretically possible that small quantities of GM pollen can be transported up to 9 km from GM crops. The recommended isolation distance between GM crops and non-GM crops in England is 200 meters for corn, and 50 meters for canola. It seems to me that these distances are arbitrary and based more on convenience than on actual isolation of GM crops. Professor Mark Winston, a Canadian bee research specialist, has attempted to review scientific studies pertaining to bees and GMO's. As you might expect, most GM research has been conducted by the biotechnology companies who create GMO's. What I did not expect is that this research is considered proprietary information, and not subject to public scrutiny. Prof. Winston contacted the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and encountered a brick wall. Their response was that, yes, honeybee larvae or adults had been examined in tests with GM pollen. They would not reveal what GM crops were tested, who did the testing, what the experimental protocol was, or the results of the tests. Information which is absolutely essential for the independent validation of Biotech company claims regarding the safety of GMO's is unavailable to the GMO consuming public. It is my understanding that FDA policy is similar to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This veil of secrecy does not serve the public interest and should be lifted as a precondition for EPA approval of GMO's. Proprietary research on presently approved GMO's should also be publicly accessible. There are a few publicly reported studies regarding the effect of GM pollen on honeybees. Minh-Ha Pham Deleque has done some work on this area for the French government research institute, INRA. She has studied the effects of GM pollen from varieties of canola and soybeans on honeybees in a laboratory setting. Her findings indicate that none of the tested pollens kill adult bees outright, but that they may shorten their lifespan and cause some behavioral changes, particularly in a loss of their ability to learn and to smell. This may cause foraging bees to "forget" where flowers or even their own hive is located. Obviously, some issues have been raised by this work which need to be further explored. The most important research finding in this area has recently come from Jena University in Germany. Researchers there have shown that a gene used in GM canola transferred to bacteria in the guts of bees. I believe this is the first publicly documented case of horizontal gene transfer from GM crops to bacteria within any animal. This discovery may have major implications for the future of GM crops. One main objection to GM crops has focused on the fact that during genetic manipulations required to create GMO's, antibiotic resistant "marker" genes are combined with the so-called genes of interest. These combined genes are inserted into the target plant together. Within the plant, the antibiotic resistant gene has no expression and is harmless. However, if this gene were able to transfer out of the GM plant and re-enter a bacterium, this bacterium would become antibiotic resistant. This might render commonly used antibiotics useless against diseases attacking humans and livestock, including honeybees. At the beginning of my testimony, I mentioned the fact that bees in the U.S. are increasingly afflicted with a strain of antibiotic resistant American Foulbrood (AFB). Before the advent of antibiotics, this bacterial infection was the most serious bee disease in the world. Tetracycline had been used effectively against AFB for 40 years until 1996. In that year, tetracycline resistance was confirmed in both Argentina and the upper Midwestern states of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Since then, it has spread to at least 17 states, including New York. During the 1990's, millions of acres of Round-up Ready crops were planted in the U.S. and Argentina. According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was resistant to tetracycline. After 40 years of effective usage against an infective bacterium found in the guts of honeybees, suddenly 2 geographically isolated countries develop tetracycline resistance simultaneously. A common thread between the U.S. and Argentina is the widespread and recent cultivation of GM crops containing tetracycline resistant genes. I spoke about this with Dr. Haricho Shimanuki who until recently was the research leader of the USDA/ARS bee research lab in Beltsville, M.D. Dr. Shimanuki is not aware of any attempt to analyze the resistant foulbrood for genetic pollution from GM crops. I think that with the proper equipment these bacteria could be inspected for the presence of the Round-up Ready gene. That gene should have tagged along with the tetracycline resistant gene if in fact this unlikely coincidence was due to horizontal gene transfer between GM crops and foulbrood bacteria. Since the public health implications of this are of major proportions, I would urge you to immediately direct funds to a suitable independent research facility such as Cornell for the purpose of determining whether or not this unwelcome gene transfer has occurred. If so, the state of N.Y. should recommend to the FDA that the approval for GM crops containing antibiotic resistant gene markers be reviewed and possibly revoked immediately. Biotech corporations have maintained that we should trust their research findings which secretly prove to Federal regulators that GM crops are safe. I would suggest that it would be wise to maintain a healthy skepticism on this matter. Often there is a fundamental conflict between the corporate interest in short term profit, and the public interest in the health and safety of the people. In fact, we have recently seen examples of this conflict exposed in the courts concerning other corporations. I think there are enough valid uncertainties about GMO's to justify NYS to require labeling of GM foods. The world is now participating in a vast GMO experiment. New Yorkers should have the choice of opting out of this experiment if they so desire. GM food labeling would partially provide this option. Thank you. --- - Robt Mann consultant ecologist P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:20:27 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: P-O Gustafsson Subject: Request MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A group of beekeepers from Sweden will visit the Canary Islands end of november and wish to get in touch with beekeepers there. If you have any contact info, please reply to me direct and not to the list. -- Regards P-O Gustafsson, Sweden beeman@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~beeman/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:13:39 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Paul Cherubini Subject: Industry says no link between Gaucho or Regent and bee deaths MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/001026/l26112442.html PARIS, Oct 26 (Reuters) - European chemicals giant Aventis (NYSE:AVE - news) on Thursday denied any link between its pesticide Regent and a mystery illness which has devastated the bee population in parts of France. Aventis CropScience France, the company's French agricultural unit, said in a statement that Regent did not belong to the category of so-called systemic pesticides which honey makers blame for intoxicating bees, causing scores to die. Systemic pesticides are spread via the sap into the plant. Protests by beekeepers have targeted mainly Gaucho, a pesticide made by Bayer AG , but have also called Regent into question. Both products are used to coat seeds and both are designed to protect sunseed crops against insects,but Aventis said its product functioned in a different manner from systemic pesticides. ``Regent TS has none of the characteristics questioned by beekeepers. Regent TS is a non-systemic insecticide. This property means that in no event is it carried via the sap into the upper areas of the plant,'' the company said. ``The fact is that these characteristics allow no contact between the bee and the product,'' it added. The Farm Ministry, responding to concerns about so-called ``mad bee disease'', in January 1999 suspended use of Bayer's Gaucho pesticide on sunseeds as a precautionary measure. But beekeepers said the measure was insufficient, as studies found that Gaucho left a residue which meant that even after two years, plants sown on the same spot as the crop originally treated contained traces of the product. They are demanding the ban be extended to wheat, barley, maize and sugar beet crops which are currently treated with systemic pesticides, mainly to protect them against greenflies. Bayer has confirmed that Gaucho leaves a small residue in nectar and pollen, but said there was no evidence of any link between Gaucho and the drop in bee population affecting mainly central and eastern France. The National Union of French Beekeepers (UNAF) said French honey production fell to around 25,000 tonnes in 1999 from 35,000 tonnes before systemic pesticides were introduced in the early 1990s. The number of hives has plummeted to one million from 1.45 million in 1996. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:02:30 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Brenchley Subject: Re: AFB/EFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From my reading (I'm pretty new to beekeeping), EFB is a stress disease. Melissococcus is endemic, and the disease appears in times when the larvae are fed insufficiently. If this is correct, what purpose would be served by burning EFB hives? An endemic bacillus will not be eliminated either by treatment or by burning; wouldn't it be better to deal with an EFB hive by identifying the cause of the stress and eliminating it? Or is my reasoning cockeyed somewhere? I would totally support burning for AFB, but I wonder where the bees come into contact with spores, given the pattern of sporadic isolated outbreaks? Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:52:36 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Stan Sandler Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dave Cushman wrote: >Here in UK we have a destruction policy for AFB, absolutely no >exceptions...There are >many of us here that think this policy should be extended to EFB as well. Fantastic, Dave! Since you think that EFB infected hives should be destroyed and not sterilized then you must have the elusive data that I have been seeking on how long EFB remains infective in equipment (it is NOT spore forming). Surely you wouldn't advocate something as extreme as destruction without knowing such a basic fact. And since no one else on the list was able to provide an answer to that question (I posted it three times a month ago under the subject heading: EFB sterilization) I look forward very much to your response. The other responses to that thread often mentioned that antibiotics were not being used in many places, and the bees were being requeened and moved to better foraging as treatment. But no one mentioned destruction (or even sterilization). Are there any places in the world where EFB hives are destroyed? If so on what basis do they justify this? (I exclude New Zealand. Since it has not found s. pluton so far, I certainly would assume it would destroy anything that tested positive for s. pluton and was not Half Moon Disease.) Regards, Stan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:07:47 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jerry Ameel Subject: MBA Site is open In-Reply-To: <200010142002.QAA18765@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The New "Michigan Beekeepers Association" web site is launched. We are encouraging Michigan beekeepers to sign on, view and comment. Opinions from all beekeepers welcome. Thanks, Jake www.mi-beekeepers.org ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:23:06 -0500 Reply-To: arl@q7.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Al Subject: Re: Honey, labeling, nutrition In-Reply-To: <200010252325.TAA21996@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I found this breakfast cereal the other day" "Honey Puffed Kashi" distributed byt he Kashi Company. Ingredients: Honey, Whole Oats, Long Grain Brown Rice, Whole Rye, Whole Hard Winter Wheat, Whole Trinticale, Whole Buckwheat, Whole Barley, Sesame Seeds. It tastes pretty good. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:42:03 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: GMO Testimony from Joe Rowland MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The following is posted with permission from Joe Rowland, a beekeeper in Central New York. Although speculative in nature, Joe raises some interesting possibilities that bear investigation. GMO testimony submitted by Joe Rowland to the N.Y. Assembly standing committees on agriculture, consumer affairs, and the assembly task force on food, farm, and nutrition policy. 3rd October 2000. Thank-you for inviting me to testify on the subject of genetically modified organisms. I'm a commercial beekeeper, and the secretary/treasurer of the Empire State Honey Producers Association. I also sit on the executive committee of U.S. Beekeepers, a national trade association. Honeybees are an important component of our agricultural economy. Many crops are dependent on honeybee pollination for cost effective production. A recently published Cornell study set the honeybee's value to U.S. agriculture at 14.6 billion dollars. An additional value accrues to home gardeners and wildlife who forage on wild seeds and fruit set as a result of bee pollination. Over ? of the 3 million colonies kept in the U.S. are now trucked around the country for the purpose of pollinating our crops. Thousands of colonies are moved into N.Y. every year and provide a valuable service to N.Y. farmers and consumers. Sadly, bees and beekeepers have had a rough time recently. We must contend with 3 exotic pests introduced over the past 15 years. The wholesale price of honey in inflation-adjusted dollars is lower than at any time since World War II. There also has been a resurgence of American Foulbrood, which had been successfully controlled by antibiotics in the past. Are GMO's a real or potential threat to honeybees? I've tried to answer this question by searching for publicly available research on the subject and by drawing on my own knowledge of honeybee biology. Honeybees collect and consume nectar and pollen. Nectar is a complex sugar solution which provides carbohydrates. There is very little protein from forage plants in nectar. Since GM plants generally express their special characteristics in the form of biologically active proteins, there is probably not much danger to bees from nectar. Pollen is their protein source, and when collected from GM crops, contains the modified gene structure of the GMO. It may also contain novel proteins produced by the modified plant. Pollen is the male fertilizing component of flowering plants and so is a concentrated source of genetic material. Damaging effects to bees from GMO's are most likely to result from pollen. A colony of honeybees will collect and consume approximately 75 lbs of pollen in a year. Corn, canola, soybeans, and cotton yield pollen that is collected by bees within foraging range of these crops. All of these crops have GM varieties which are extensively cultivated in the U.S. Field tests in England have shown that bee colonies 4.5 km from GM canola fields collect GM pollen. Bees forage in all directions, and pollen grains are transferred between bees within the colony through bodily contact. It is theoretically possible that small quantities of GM pollen can be transported up to 9 km from GM crops. The recommended isolation distance between GM crops and non-GM crops in England is 200 meters for corn, and 50 meters for canola. It seems to me that these distances are arbitrary and based more on convenience than on actual isolation of GM crops. Professor Mark Winston, a Canadian bee research specialist, has attempted to review scientific studies pertaining to bees and GMO's. As you might expect, most GM research has been conducted by the biotechnology companies who create GMO's. What I did not expect is that this research is considered proprietary information, and not subject to public scrutiny. Prof. Winston contacted the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and encountered a brick wall. Their response was that, yes, honeybee larvae or adults had been examined in tests with GM pollen. They would not reveal what GM crops were tested, who did the testing, what the experimental protocol was, or the results of the tests. Information which is absolutely essential for the independent validation of Biotech company claims regarding the safety of GMO's is unavailable to the GMO consuming public. It is my understanding that FDA policy is similar to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This veil of secrecy does not serve the public interest and should be lifted as a precondition for EPA approval of GMO's. Proprietary research on presently approved GMO's should also be publicly accessible. There are a few publicly reported studies regarding the effect of GM pollen on honeybees. Minh-Ha Pham Deleque has done some work on this area for the French government research institute, INRA. She has studied the effects of GM pollen from varieties of canola and soybeans on honeybees in a laboratory setting. Her findings indicate that none of the tested pollens kill adult bees outright, but that they may shorten their lifespan and cause some behavioral changes, particularly in a loss of their ability to learn and to smell. This may cause foraging bees to "forget" where flowers or even their own hive is located. Obviously, some issues have been raised by this work which need to be further explored. The most important research finding in this area has recently come from Jena University in Germany. Researchers there have shown that a gene used in GM canola transferred to bacteria in the guts of bees. I believe this is the first publicly documented case of horizontal gene transfer from GM crops to bacteria within any animal. This discovery may have major implications for the future of GM crops. One main objection to GM crops has focused on the fact that during genetic manipulations required to create GMO's, antibiotic resistant "marker" genes are combined with the so-called genes of interest. These combined genes are inserted into the target plant together. Within the plant, the antibiotic resistant gene has no expression and is harmless. However, if this gene were able to transfer out of the GM plant and re-enter a bacterium, this bacterium would become antibiotic resistant. This might render commonly used antibiotics useless against diseases attacking humans and livestock, including honeybees. At the beginning of my testimony, I mentioned the fact that bees in the U.S. are increasingly afflicted with a strain of antibiotic resistant American Foulbrood (AFB). Before the advent of antibiotics, this bacterial infection was the most serious bee disease in the world. Tetracycline had been used effectively against AFB for 40 years until 1996. In that year, tetracycline resistance was confirmed in both Argentina and the upper Midwestern states of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Since then, it has spread to at least 17 states, including New York. During the 1990's, millions of acres of Round-up Ready crops were planted in the U.S. and Argentina. According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was resistant to tetracycline. After 40 years of effective usage against an infective bacterium found in the guts of honeybees, suddenly 2 geographically isolated countries develop tetracycline resistance simultaneously. A common thread between the U.S. and Argentina is the widespread and recent cultivation of GM crops containing tetracycline resistant genes. I spoke about this with Dr. Haricho Shimanuki who until recently was the research leader of the USDA/ARS bee research lab in Beltsville, M.D. Dr. Shimanuki is not aware of any attempt to analyze the resistant foulbrood for genetic pollution from GM crops. I think that with the proper equipment these bacteria could be inspected for the presence of the Round-up Ready gene. That gene should have tagged along with the tetracycline resistant gene if in fact this unlikely coincidence was due to horizontal gene transfer between GM crops and foulbrood bacteria. Since the public health implications of this are of major proportions, I would urge you to immediately direct funds to a suitable independent research facility such as Cornell for the purpose of determining whether or not this unwelcome gene transfer has occurred. If so, the state of N.Y. should recommend to the FDA that the approval for GM crops containing antibiotic resistant gene markers be reviewed and possibly revoked immediately. Biotech corporations have maintained that we should trust their research findings which secretly prove to Federal regulators that GM crops are safe. I would suggest that it would be wise to maintain a healthy skepticism on this matter. Often there is a fundamental conflict between the corporate interest in short term profit, and the public interest in the health and safety of the people. In fact, we have recently seen examples of this conflict exposed in the courts concerning other corporations. I think there are enough valid uncertainties about GMO's to justify NYS to require labeling of GM foods. The world is now participating in a vast GMO experiment. New Yorkers should have the choice of opting out of this experiment if they so desire. GM food labeling would partially provide this option. Thank-you. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:50:06 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: AFB/EFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Robert Brenchley wrote: > I would totally support burning for AFB, but I wonder > where the bees come into contact with spores, given the > pattern of sporadic isolated outbreaks? The most common source is from contaminated honey. Within an operation this can be from exchanging frames from hive to hive or putting wet supers out for the bees. Between operations, it's usually your neighbors bees (written tounge in cheek). Seriously, the most common source of AFB spores is from contaminated honey. Aaron Morris - I think, therefore I bee! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:52:36 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Hamilton Subject: Re: AFB/EFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain < Robert Brenchley wrote ..EFB is a stress disease. Melissococcus is endemic ..An endemic bacillus will not be eliminated either by treatment or by burning > I believe AFB is also endemic .. a study here awhile back found reported AFB spore counts in many honey samples. Thus, I think your argument is valid for AFB as well. Burning is probably needed when it isn't caught in time and treated. Foci of AFB in a hive will responded to treatment vs when entire hive body is rotting and no amount of terramycin will save them .. also not a good environment to start a new colony, thus burn it. Management is probably the operative thought. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Robert Brenchley [mailto:RSBrenchley@AOL.COM] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 04:03 AM To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: AFB/EFB From my reading (I'm pretty new to beekeeping), EFB is a stress disease. Melissococcus is endemic, and the disease appears in times when the larvae are fed insufficiently. If this is correct, what purpose would be served by burning EFB hives? An endemic bacillus will not be eliminated either by treatment or by burning; wouldn't it be better to deal with an EFB hive by identifying the cause of the stress and eliminating it? Or is my reasoning cockeyed somewhere? I would totally support burning for AFB, but I wonder where the bees come into contact with spores, given the pattern of sporadic isolated outbreaks? Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:42:01 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: Re: New whitewash reduces pesticide use MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all, I've been offline for a week or so as I've been moving. I'm glad to see the "Honey, Labeling, Nutrition" thread has provoked some interesting commentary. Regarding this new clay whitewash, I spoke to an organic apple orchardist in northern New Hampshire who said that the great barrier to the creation of an organic apple industry east of the Mississippi is the presence of the plum curculio, a North American native species that can devastate apple orchards. This is why most organic apples, I am told, are grown out West or are imported. Michael Phillips, author of "The Apple Grower" on organic apple orcharding (Chelsea Green), said he knows Eastern orchardists who would like to break the green market but are stymied by the plum curculio. From memory, I think he said thbe pest is currently controlled with an organophosphate. He said a new breakthrough was coming that would open up an organic apple industry in the East: clay. I haven't heard anything else about it since he said it to me last year, so thanks for posting the info. Kim raises an interesting point though: <> As others have observed in previous threads, just because a substance is labeled organic, it isn't necessarily benign in the environment. As the scientists say, "More data is needed." If the use of clay becomes prevalent, observant beekeepers should share their field notes about its effects. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:36:43 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: Re: Whitewashed and returned... In-Reply-To: <200011011855.NAA18318@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:50 PM 11/1/00 -0500, you wrote: When MT ST Helen erupted, the ash, which was mostly a fine sand that resembled talc was hard on brood and other insect larvae, both from ingestion and for caterpillars, from dessication and abrasion. Jerry Jerry J. Bromenshenk, Ph.D. Director, DOE/EPSCoR & Montana Organization for Research in Energy The University of Montana-Missoula Missoula, MT 59812-1002 E-Mail: jjbmail@selway.umt.edu Tel: 406-243-5648 Fax: 406-243-4184 http://www.umt.edu/biology/more http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:48:03 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All The thread I am following here is the destruction of colonies and flaming of hives for EFB There have been numerous replies both on and off list but for simplicity I will not name them. > Fantastic, Dave! Since you think that EFB infected hives should be > destroyed and not sterilized then you must have the elusive data that I have > been seeking on how long EFB remains infective in equipment (it is NOT spore > forming). Surely you wouldn't advocate something as extreme as destruction > without knowing such a basic fact. I do not have "evidence" or data...My information is anecdotal...I have been collating it mentally for several years based on information passed to me by various bees officers and other contacts in UK. The official standpoint in UK on EFB is light infestations may be treated with terramycin and given fresh foundation. Heavy infestations are destroyed as for AFB. I have never experienced AFB or EFB personally...AFB is rare in UK but EFB is increasing as a secondary effect of varroa and/or it's treatment. The gist of what I have heard is that although colonies survive with treatment they never seem (other peoples subjective observations) to perform as well as expected in comparison to healthy colonies and there is a risk of spreading infection. I have no room for under performance...I want healthy, vigorous bees. A blanket destruction policy for all Foulbrood diseases would eventually eliminate them. I admit, that to some, the cost would be high (particularly in USA). It is only the treatment that allows the long term survival of EFB (regardless of propagation method). Best Regards, Dave Cushman G8MZY Email: dave.cushman@lineone.net Website...Beekeeping and Bee Breeding http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 20:58:39 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: Re: Eat (and drink) More Honey In-Reply-To: <200010251152.HAA00138@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200010251152.HAA00138@listserv.albany.edu>, Lipscomb, Al writes >>What could you call pancake syrup made from watered down pasteurized and >>or preserved honey? > >"Honey flavored Syrup" >"All Natural Honey Flavored Syrup" Flavoured (English - couldn't resist) has a bad reputation IMHO. It implies a chemical produced to taste like honey but actually has nothing whatsoever to do with honey. How about "Honey Syrup", better than "Syrup of Honey"? -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 21:05:27 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey In-Reply-To: <200010251544.LAA08554@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200010251544.LAA08554@listserv.albany.edu>, Allen Dick writes >For local markets, the matter is much simpler and the risks are less. The >opportunities are there. We made a living selling our honey at farmers markets >many years ago, and we found the at the more honey products -- up to about >ten -- we had at our tables, the better we did and the better we could >differentiate ourselves from any competition. Please would you list the 10 honey products? Thanks. -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 21:29:28 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit James, I will reply, only because I have watched your discussions and you have a good head on your shoulders; plus, even though I live in the "colonies", I am 100% Scot and have visited Scotland 6 times in the last 50 years exploring most of the isle. Now, I am disabled by strokes, so my visiting days are over, I reckon. MOST people think that ALL honey is the same, an amber, golden sweet liquid, and unfortunately, that seems to be the limit of their knowledge now in this URBANIZED country where only 2% of the people live on farms. The shocking thing is that 98% of all people know nothing about the importance of honey bee pollination for our human food supply. Most people under 50 years old have no idea what comb honey is, and ask questions like: How do you eat it? How do you get the honey out of the wax? Do you eat the wax? Further, few people have ever seen creamed honey or honey spread, and simply DON'T BELIEVE that it is 100% honey. Hence, I try to move my bees from one bloom to another to get different honeys, particularly different colors from water white locust to pitch black buckwheat. I also buy or swap honeys from other parts of the U. S. to provide "one-stop shopping" or enjoy a "tasting" party among customers. Allen Dick said 10 different things. I haven't counted, but at FAIRS, I sell extracted honeys in bears and jars, cut comb honey, square section honey Ross-Rounds, creamed honey, honey sticks (to attract the kids who attract the parent's wallets), wax candles, wax bars, National Honey Board Cook Books, and MOST IMPORTANT (and profitable), assorted GIFT PACKS. I have numerous Gift Packs; d taste which sells for $8 ($16 per pound of honey), a wooden crate containing 2 three ounce mugs of two different colored honeys + a 12 ounce bear of a third different honey, which totals 18 ounces of honey and sells for $6, equaling $5.33 per pound of honey. I have plain creamed honey, cinnamon creamed honey, and straw- berry creamed honey, which sells for $4 for 12 ounces = $5.33 per pound. I sell comb honey for $1.00 + 25˘ per ounce which equals $5.00/pound. I also sell Chunk Honey which is $4.50 per pound. The extracted honeys are in 1, 2, or 5 pound jars and they sell for $4.00 for 1 pound, $7.00 for 2 pounds, & $15 for 5 pounds. Most beekeepers are not sales inclined and say my prices are too high; but when we are at the same FAIR, I sell much more than they do even at my high prices, because I attract people to the booth and then SELL, not take orders. If I don't sell an average of $100 per hour, either the weather was bad, or the crowd was poor, so I don't go back to that site. In august, we have our 9 day long county FAIR that has almost 1 million paying attendees. Our total Fair sales were almost $10,000 for 9 days. Maybe that is what Allen Dick meant by having 10 things. Having multiple things is important, but I think diversity, attractiveness, "come-ons" like an observation hive, and SALESMANSHIP are more important. Of course, I have had 68 years of experience doing this which helps. I forgot to mention that the average grocery store price of honey in the states is about $2.50 per pound in 1 LB jars. Ending: I have NEVER sold a single jar of honey in my life - I sell the DESIRE of people to have some of George Imirie's honey. James, I hoped I have helped. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:10:40 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Stan Sandler Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dave wrote: >I do not have "evidence" or data...My information is anecdotal... Well, I guess I will hold off on torching several hundred hives of mostly new equipment on the basis on anecdotal evidence. But the silence on this list regarding sterilization is deafening. >I have no room for under performance...I want healthy, vigorous bees. A >blanket destruction policy for all Foulbrood diseases would eventually >eliminate them. You said you DO have a blanket destruction policy is UK for AFB. Has it eliminated it? How long have you had it? Can you point to some place in the world where it has been eliminated (most places I gather have blanket destruction policies for AFB). If EFB is an *endemic* disease, then elimination is hardly an option. >I admit, that to some, the cost would be high (particularly in USA). Yes, the bank might not take kindly to me torching my operation and taking a job driving a potato truck. >It is only the treatment that allows the long term survival of EFB So one would expect it to have been eliminated in all the places that don't treat. >I have no room for under performance...I want healthy, vigorous bees. We have two very different factors here, the animal and the housing. If the animal is sick then you may treat it, or you may decide to destroy it. If the housing is contaminated then you may sterilize it or you may decide to destroy it. In the case of AFB the methods of sterilization are known, as well as the length of time that the spores can remain infective and there is also the persistence of the scales to consider. But no one seems to be able to post anything on those factors regarding EFB (with the exception of Adony's post on EFB and radiation, but radiation is not an option on this island). All the infected honey is now WITH the healthy, vigorous bees. They robbed it. I expect almost all colonies to be dealing with a certain level of bacterial contamination when brood rearing resumes. I presume that there is a certain level that bees can tolerate with no antibiotics, and a certain level that they can tolerate with antibiotics. And I presume that those levels are also affected by environmental/nutritional conditions and by bee genetics. A bacteria that does not form spores can only remain infective in dry equipment for a certain length of time. I find it hard to believe that with an old disease someone has not studied this. I also know that someone on this list has some experience with repopulating EFB deadouts after a certain length of time and perhaps after some treatment of frames (mine are mostly plastic foundation, and I will likely burn the wax ones). I would be very grateful if they would share some knowledge other than anecdotal. Regards, Stan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:46:35 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey In-Reply-To: <200011030414.XAA10970@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Maybe that is what Allen Dick meant by having 10 things. Having multiple > things is important, but I think diversity, attractiveness, "come-ons" like > an observation hive, and SALESMANSHIP are more important. Thanks for answering this, George. I've been pretty busy the last little while. I guess I generally quit at about ten items, because of the hassle of moving things in and out of the market buildings or sites, and the fact that we sometimes hired help when we were going to quite a few markets. That is not to say that more products might not be better. Even if an item hardly ever sells, if it stops people and promotes conversation, it relieves boredom and creates opportunities. Besides, it distinguishes you from the others art the market and makes your honey a distinct product and not just a commodity. We always kept one variety that we charged a hefty premium for (usually buckwheat), just to emphasize that there are differences and to make our main honey type look less costly. We also carried a few 5 gallon pails along to make the others look smaller. People always want the 'middle size'. Sometimes if we had to carry far, we just took empties for show, since we hardly sold any of them, and would go out to the truck for them if we had a real sale. In regard to all the heavy toting of honey, I always thought a lightweight car trailer with drop sides that made into a counter would be ideal. It could be run into the market like a handcart and serve as a table, if it were designed and built right. Such a trailer would need to be dustproof, and be able to be locked -- both against pilfering and against being taken away in its entirety -- but it would eliminate the part of markets I hated the most, carrying in, setting up, tearing down, and carrying out. allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:09:38 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Eat (and drink) More Honey In-Reply-To: <200011022339.SAA04511@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >>What could you call pancake syrup made from watered down pasteurised and > >>or preserved honey? > > > >"Honey flavoured Syrup" > >"All Natural Honey Flavoured Syrup" > How about "Honey Syrup", better than "Syrup > of Honey"? Of course if we use a preservative, then it has to be a syrup, not honey -- unfortunately. We cannot call anything but honey, "honey". We would not want to. That would open the floodgates. If we add water, then it is not a recognised honey grade according to the governments, so we cannot label it as honey without a grade -- and with that moisture level, it would be a low grade just due to the moisture if it were allowed at all. This *is* a problem. If we call it honey syrup, then we are in the same boat with Colonel Saunders and his fake honey called 'honey syrup'. Maybe if we labelled our product as such and called it REAL Honey syrup, "made with only pure honey and the finest mountain (slough?) water" or some such wording we would be able to get the idea across. allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:31:54 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Stan The frames are burned but the hive bodies are scorched internally and are available for re-use. Our destruction policy for AFB has not eliminated it but has reduced it to a very low level. Destruction is only a sensible option if all beekeepers within a geographical area do the same. Feral colonies will be less of an AFB/EFB problem with varroa destroying them but robbing bees will always smell out the last specks of honey in them and it will thus be many years and many re-infestations before the problem is finally eliminated. In UK we have a "Bee Disease Insurance" that gives a small but welcome compensation if destruction of bees is ordered by a bee disease officer. I would not consider EFB as "endemic" there is usually a traceable cause, (in UK this is usually the moving of bees outside controlled "standstill" areas). Best Regards, Dave Cushman G8MZY Email: dave.cushman@lineone.net Website...Beekeeping and Bee Breeding http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:16:36 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: CHANGE OF DATES - IMPORTANT NOTICE MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Adriaan du Toit wrote: > CHANGE OF DATE APIMONDIA 2001 : IMPORTANT NOTICE > NEW DATE: 28 OCTOBER - 1 NOVEMBER 2001 > > The United Nations' High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Mary Benson, > announced on Tuesday, 24 October 2000 in New York that South Africa had > been appointed host country for the 2001 WORLD CONFERENCE AGAINST RACISM, > DISCRIMINATION and XENOPHOBIA. This conference will take place at the > Durban International Convention Centre. The Convention Centre is booked by > the UN for the period 17th August - 10th September 2000. This mega > conference event will be attended by 12,000 delegates and 193 heads of > government plus their personal entourage (including, personal assistants, > body guards, chefs, private aircraft & motor vehicles), bringing to 20,000+ > the total people who would be > involved. As you will note, these dates clash head-on with the planned > activities for > Apimondia 2001. > > We, as the Congress Organisers for Apimondia 2001 were requested by the > South African Government to investigate the possibility of re-scheduling > the Apimondia Congress in order to ensure that this very important World > Congress can be accommodated. In consultation with Asger Jorgenson > (President of Apimondia, Denmark) and Riccardo Jannoni-Sebastianini > (Secretary-General for Apimondia, Italy), and after many discussions we > decided that given the high priority and profile of the UN Racism > Conference, it would be in the best interest to move the Apimondia Congress > to a later date. > > We accept that this change could cause inconvenience. We apologise for this > in advance, but now we must look forward and start again with renewed > enthusiasm to make this forced change beneficial to the Apimondia Congress > and the bee-keeping community internationally. The revised date now falls > outside the South African & African honey harvesting season as well as at > the end of the apple and pear pollination season, we expect greater local > and regional participation, it is also expected to benefit our northern > hemisphere beekeeping colleagues, as they would have finished their winter > preparations. > > WE AGAIN INVITE YOU TO ATTEND THIS MAJOR BEEKEEPING EVENT WHICH WILL TAKE > PLACE FROM 28 OCTOBER - 1 NOVEMBER 2001 AT THE DURBAN INTERNATIONAL > CONVENTION CENTRE, SOUTH AFRICA. > > Please do not hesitate to contact myself (letoit@global.co.za) or the > Congress organising secretariat, Cilla Taylor, (confplan@iafrica.com) if > you have any concerns or comments in regards to this date change. > > Dr Adriaan du Toit > Tel & Fax: Int + 2712 8081762 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 05:57:00 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: smitch Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU George Imirie I hope people are listening..........Hello People are you listening........sell that product and get paid what you are worth. Thanks again George:-) Scott Mitchell ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:43:21 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Greg Hankins Subject: Re: Eat (and drink) More Honey In-Reply-To: <200010250136.VAA19743@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I like Allen's idea of marketing a thinned honey syrup for pancakes and may try it myself. Seems to me the point someone made about packaging it in a syrup-type bottle is a good one. I am curious, though, about the viscosity issue. Is this really what's keeping folks from using honey on their hotcakes? I have some doubt about that; in fact, popular pancake syrups in the US seem to vary in viscosity, as can be demonstrated by a short tour through my syrup-eating history. As a kid raised in the Appalachians, I mostly ate Karo syrup on my pancakes. This is just corn syrup, I believe, and comes in a stronger flavored (with molasses maybe) brwon version and a clear version. I liked the clear best. Both versions of Karo, as I recall, were pretty thick - like a thinner honey. We also had Log Cabin maple flavored syrup, which, as I recall, had a very strong marketing campaign. This was significantly thinner syrup than Karo, but not nearly so thin as real maple syrup. Then along came Mrs Butterworths, a maple and butter flavored syrup considerably thicker than Log Cabin. Seems like I ate this in Jr. High & High School years. Again, a strong marketing campaign, and, I'd bet, a significant impact on Log Cabin's market share, despite (or because of) being more viscous. Finally, I switched to pure maple syrup (the thinnest of all the above) when I moved to New England. Now that I have my own bees, I use honey (including comb and cream) on pancakes and French toast. Unless the cakes are cold, I don't find the honey too thick at all, though it's loads thicker than maple syrup. Conclusion, in my mind, is that the thickness of the honey may not be the issue. The issue may just be better marketing -- and brand-specific marketing -- on the part of the purveyors of flavored corn syrup. That said, putting some thinner honey syrup on the shelf may be the best way of tempting consumers back toward using the real thing. Greg ______________________________________________________________ Greg Hankins Seven Lakes Times, L.L.C. ghankins@ac.net P.O. Box 602 Voice: (910)673-0111 1008 Seven Lakes Drive Fax: (910)673-0210 Seven Lakes, NC 27376 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 06:45:05 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jean-Francois Lariviere Subject: Re: Eat (and drink) More Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/2/00 6:43:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, honeymountain@KILTY.DEMON.CO.UK writes: << >>What could you call pancake syrup made from watered down pasteurized and >>or preserved honey? > >"Honey flavored Syrup" >"All Natural Honey Flavored Syrup" >> HOW ABOUT CALLING IT "PANCAKE HONEY" ??? Jean-Francois Lariviere NY NY ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:50:10 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lackey, Raymond" Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey MIME-version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" George mentioned flavored creamed honeys. Three questions there: One: Where can recipes for flavored creamed honeys be found? Two: Assuming that they use a fruit concentrate, can you recommend sources? Three: In the US, doesn't the mixing of things with the honey require a "food processor's License" with all of the associated inspections and such? Raymond J. Lackey Sweet Pines Apiary Master Beekeeper - Eastern Apiculture Society (1995) President (again) - Long Island Beekeepers Association email home: lackeyray@tianca.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:44:06 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: ARNOLD JONES Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I do a similar fair festival sales thing not as large but what I enjoy. I have heard exactly the same comments the one that I love is the one where a man and his wife walk by (and this is often) she ask what is that dear. He answers "honey I think" then he looks straight at me and ask "it is honey isn't it" both educated and "well to do" sorts. scary arnold ===== ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:31:54 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: George Richtmeyer Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I make cream honey in five flavors,plain, strawberry,lemon,orange and maple I bottle it in 8oz. jars We get $4.00 per jar We use only 100% natural flavoring by Frontier and can be purchased in any Health-food store..George,s Apiary George Richtmeyer ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:21:13 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Re: Eat (and drink) More Honey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Greg Hankins wrote (in part): >Finally, I switched to pure maple syrup (the thinnest of all the above) >when I moved to New England. > >Now that I have my own bees, I use honey (including comb and cream) on >pancakes and French toast. Unless the cakes are cold, I don't find the >honey too thick at all, though it's loads thicker than maple syrup. > >Conclusion, in my mind, is that the thickness of the honey may not be the >issue. The issue may just be better marketing -- and brand-specific >marketing -- on the part of the purveyors of flavored corn syrup. I feel that better marketing is the secret. We have all heard the expression, "hot biscuits and honey." It makes one's mouth water. And, no, the thickness is not an issue. One can heat honey a little in a microwave oven before dribbling it onto pancakes. That's what I do! However, I have to admit that I use some real maple syrup on some pancakes and then honey on the next batch --- the best of both worlds! Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone) 967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX) Santa Barbara, CA 93106 [http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm] ******************************************************************** * * "To have one's opinions prefabricated can be a source of great * comfort and relief. It relieves one of the responsibility of * choice." * Murray Levin, 1971 * ******************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:36:51 -0000 Reply-To: Gavin Ramsay Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: GM crop - bee disease link etc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Fellow Bee-Listers Joe Rowland's comments on GM crops and beekeeping were given space here recently, with encouragement to editors of bee journals to take them up. So much heat and so little light on this topic! I wouldn't wish to argue with all of the points he raised …. but …. two of the main points, that Terramycin resistance in AFB could be due to GM crops and that a French study indicated problems for bees using GM pollen, need some comments. There are public sources of rather technical information on the Internet for those who wish to see it. In the States, the comprehensive APHIS database holds information on all experimental field releases (1) and all unrestricted commercial releases (2). Similar sites exist in several other countries, including here in the UK. It would seem that resistance to tetracyclines (therefore Terramycin) has not been used in crops for small-scale or commercial release. Resistance genes for neomycin-type antibiotics have been widely used in the past but are unlikely to appear in many new GM varieties. Different classes of antibiotics have different modes of action. The widely-used gene neomycin phosphotransferase II (nptII) will not give resistance to tetracyclines as far as I am aware. So, AFB is very unlikely to have picked up its resistance in the US or elsewhere from GM crops; it will either have picked it up from pre-existing tetracyline-resistant bugs (bacteria being naturally promiscuous when it comes to gene-swapping), or have created new resistance all on its own as a result of long-term use of the antibiotic in beehives. The second point was that referring to disorientation or a reduction in longevity of bees fed on GM pollen. No so. This refers to work conducted in France where they were attempting to transfer natural anti-insect genes from one plant to another. Worried that this could damage bees, they very wisely decided to test them against bees. The proteins made by the genes were undetectable in pollen from the GM plants, so they added pure protein to the diets of bee colonies - just in case future types of GM plant did produce significant quantities in pollen. Yes, when they artificially added the anti-insect proteins to bee diets they did find reduced longevity and behavioural changes - no big surprise there! Their conclusion was that such GMOs should not be used unless, as with their plants, it had been shown that the proteins were absent from pollen. Ever since, in beekeeping circles, this story has been presented as evidence that GM pollen is harmful to bees - it is not, and to me it shows that the right people were asking the right questions at the right time! You can read all of this (in French unfortunately) at their Web site (3). I don't suppose that helped much with the heat question (my flame shield is going up now!) but I hope it spread a little light. Gavin - hobby beekeeper and professional plant geneticist, eastern Scotland. 1) http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm (for experimental releases) 2) http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/biopetitions1.cfm (for unrestricted commercial release) 3) http://www.inra.fr/Internet/Directions/DIC/ACTUALITES/DOSSIERS/OGM/jouanin.h tm (anti-insect genes and pollen) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:37:58 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Alan Riach Subject: AFB Control via destruction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Although the control of disease by destruction is fairly drastic, (the UK also controls Foot and Mouth disease in cattle by destruction), the economics can only be judged on a long term cost per colony basis. I do not know of any of my bee keeping aqaintances using chemicals to address AFB. Does the cost of AFB chemicals in the USA amount to more per colony than the cost of destruction would be per colony (over a long period of time). Costs would of course have to be averaged over the total number of USA colonies. Of course if the USA was to adopt destruction as policy there would be a high short term cost. Disease control by colony destruction has certain advantages since it will destroy "disease susceptable genes" as well as the disease itself. Alan Riach Edinburgh, Scotland ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 06:52:12 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Curtis Crowell Subject: Residue From Feeding Syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have a few hives that were nucs now in double brood boxes that were slow to build up reserves this summer and fall. I have been giving them syrup (cane sugar and water 1:1 by volume). I have noticed an accumulation of "grit" on the tops of the frames in these hives. The grit is whitish, and hard, and appears almost like the salt on a pretzel. I was out in the field yesterday and I'm sorry I neglected to taste it, but I suspect it is dried sugar left from the bees as they inevitably get some of the syrup on their legs and track it through the hive. Anyone else have this? /Curtis Crowell Hightstown, NJ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:43:52 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Murray McGregor Subject: Re: AFB Control via destruction In-Reply-To: <200011050448.XAA14706@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In article <200011050448.XAA14706@listserv.albany.edu>, Alan Riach writes >Disease control by colony destruction has certain advantages since it >will destroy "disease susceptable genes" as well as the disease itself. We in Scotland are very fortunate to have a very low indeed incidence of AFB, and a low rate of EFB. I have always been under the impression that AFB and EFB are present at low, usually non symptomatic, levels in all, or nearly all, of our colonies. We have never had a single case of AFB in 50 years in bees, totalling some 30,000 plus hive/seasons. This is without burning, AND with the importation of stock from countries where AFB is a persistent and serious problem, so we must have, at some stage, imported some supposedly genetically susceptible stock. An old bee inspector and national authority who was involved in several destruction episodes (actually he recorded several dozen over the years) kept records going back to before the last war, up to the mid 80's. He told me that the incidence of AFB in Scotland was little different in his latter years than in his early years, and in the records of his predecessor. This is despite there being considerable experimentation undertaken in the field in the 60's and 70's from an inspector based in Aberdeen with treatment rather than destruction. There appeared to be not much to choose between the two strategies in terms of re-appearance of the problem. As the incidence of this is rare in Scotland we may actually have several linked phenomena at work here, although I reckon environmental factors , linked to SOME genetic predisposition to resistance, are the main factors at play here. The old expert I was referring to kept a map of the whole area (about 4000 square miles) on his office wall, and there were coloured pins in it for every recorded AFB outbreak over the last 70 or so years. It was particularly noticeable that it occurred in pockets, with large tracts of the area with no recorded outbreaks ever, and others with 10 or more over the period. One small area in particular, about 5 miles long in a river valley had nearly 20 incidents in 70 years. I have heard in the last year of yet another outbreak affecting this place. Certainly, if genetics were the sole factor, as a result of a destruction policy, we could (should?) have encountered AFB in our imported stock. Yet we have not. We are not *especially* careful about hygeine, move boxes incessantly from hive to hive, and mix colonies from different apiaries. We have bought bees from people who have relatively recently (in the previous 5 years) suffered from AFB somewhere in their unit. EFB is certainly different, and you can cause the stress that triggers the appearance of symptoms by careless management. Having done this, and learned from the experience, we treat our bees reasonably well and have not seen any EFB like symptoms for several years (and never destroyed a single colony). I am quite certain EFB at least is endemic and will only rear its head when conditions favour it, subsiding again when the stress is removed although some treatment may be needed to help it along. Thus I seriously doubt if destruction for EFB has anything other than a superficial argument for it, as it will not tackle in any way the underlying presence of the problem. AFB? Well, I do not really know. If I found one I would burn it (out of fear of the problem), but in the light of the experiences of others I am not sure if that is strictly necessary, or even if it is an effective strategy. We have low AFB and we have a burning strategy so for the time being I will go along with it, even if the reasons for the low AFB may be coincidental. -- Murray McGregor ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 07:12:52 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: AFB Control via destruction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have been a proponent of destruction, even though the first hives I bought when I started beekeeping had AFB and I destroyed them. Years later, another beekeeper in the area also had AFB and treated and did not burn his hives. After a few years, he was lax in his treatment. He also helped another beekeeper who was a commercial pollinator by lending him hives. You know the rest. The commercial pollinator destroyed his own infected hives. All we do when we do not destroy the hives is keep a repository of spores in the frames and boxes. Since the spores are long lived and we are not, eventually they might end up with someone else. Which is exactly what happened to me. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:00:56 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Nick Wallingford Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Members of the list might be interested to read Cliff Van Eaton's paper at http://www.beekeeping.co.nz/disease/beecult.htm that describes the New Zealand experience. Cliff presented this paper at the last Apimondia. I am not at all suggesting to any of you that it is the way to go for your situation, but I do have confidence that it is providing us with a cost effective and lower risk long term solution for dealing with AFB... Note also that NZ requires the destruction of the bees, combs and frames, but other parts from infected hives are salvagable by approved means (generally, paraffin wax dipping to specific times/temperatures). > You said you DO have a blanket destruction policy is UK for > AFB. Has it > eliminated it? How long have you had it? Can you point to > some place in the > world where it has been eliminated (most places I gather have blanket > destruction policies for AFB). ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:37:51 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Residue From Feeding Syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Probably sugar. However, you ALWAYS measure 1:1 or 2:1 sugar syrups by WEIGHT, not volume. 1 pound of sugar + 1 pound of water (1 pint of water) =1:1 2 pounds of sugar + 1 pound of water (1 pint of water = 2:1 Quite often directions say "by volume or weight" but that refers to the liquid, not the solid. It just happens that 1 point of water weighs 1 pound. Unless you are in the sunny south, this is November and you should be feeding 2:1 syrup now, because in cool weather, the bees can NOT evaporate the water out of 1:1 syrup to store it. 1:1 is artificial nectar and is only used in warm weather or to stimulate queen brood rearing I hope I have helped. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 15:21:09 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Residue From Feeding Syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > However, you ALWAYS measure 1:1 or 2:1 sugar syrups by > WEIGHT, not volume. > 1 pound of sugar + 1 pound of water (1 pint of water) =1:1 > 2 pounds of sugar + 1 pound of water (1 pint of water = 2:1 > > Quite often directions say "by volume or weight" but that refers to the > liquid, not the solid. It just happens that 1 point of water weighs 1 pound. Any volume of water and a similar volume of granulated sugar weigh almost the same amont (+/- 5%) So, -- unless you hapen to be an atomic scientist -- weight or volume measure is not all that important, since most of us won't be measuring that closely anyhow. Most of us just use a bucket or whatever is handy and 'eyeball' the quantities. Besides, the limiting factor is how long you are willing to stir and how much heat you have available, since hand mixing often will not get to 67% sugar (2:1) anyhow. We'd specify 80% for fall instead of 67% if it were at all easy to make. We use 67% because it is the strongest that is easy to make and will not precipitate out too badly. Even 67% syrup will precipitate out an inch or two in the bottom of a drum in cool weather. > Unless you are in the sunny south, this is November and you should be feeding 2:1... Agreed allen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:49:26 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Residue From Feeding Syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen, I never know when someone is kidding me, because I do not do kidding myself. I AM a retired atomic physicist of the Manhattan project to build our first atomic bombs. So many beeHAVERS ask over and over again: "Do you measure by volume or weight?" I hope you get to ABF in San Diego, so we can chat. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:48:15 -0600 Reply-To: dehenry@mb.sympatico.ca Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Doug Henry Subject: Re: Residue From Feeding Syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Too late to feed now, l'hiver est arrivé. Doug Henry > > Unless you are in the sunny south, this is November and you should be > feeding 2:1... > > Agreed > > allen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:04:58 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Medhat Nasr Organization: University of Guelph Subject: Re: AFB Control via destruction Comments: To: Bill Truesdell In-Reply-To: <200011051633.LAA01625@ccshst09.cs.uoguelph.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi all, Over the past few days, There has been a discussion about the AFB and destruction of colonies as effective means to control the AFB. I think that time has come to take a hard look at the AFB and antibiotics use. In some areas in north America, beekeepers are facing a major problem with the AFB-resistance to terramycin. This is not a new case to microbiologists, doctors dealing with animals and human. OUR PRACTICES OF USING THE MIRACLE DRUGS ARE DESTROYING THE MIRACLE. The effectiveness of the antibiotics is so high which means the selection pressure on the bugs (bacteria) is also high. Therefore, new forms of the bacteria which are resistant to toxic antibiotics, develop in a short time. As beekeepers, we are lucky to use Terramycin for that long. History taught us eradication of a bug is not an easy task. It is also too expensive and risky. However, a long term sustainable management program is much better. I think that Mark Goodwin and Cliff Van Eaton's book " Elimination of American Foulbrood without the use of drugs gives us a different approach to manage AFB in bee colonies. To be fair, beekeepers who intend to apply this program, should apply the whole system in a region at the same time to get the expected benefits. Remember, In recent days the FDA has banned 2 antibiotics used in the poultry industry, who is going to be next? Medhat Nasr http://www.beekeeping.co.nz/disease/beecult.htm describes the New Zealand experience. Medhat Nasr, Ph.D. Research Scientist, Ontario Beekeepers' Association Dept. Environmental Biology University of Guelph Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 e-mail: mnasr@evbhort.uoguelpg.ca Tel: (519) 824-4120 Ext: 6243 Fax: (519) 837-0442 Home: 519-837-9882 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:42:31 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Nick Wallingford Subject: Re: Residue From Feeding Syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I agree with Allen that it really does matter much to bees whether it is by weight or volume... I've mixed many 44 gallon drums of syrup by filling to the first 1/3 reinforcing ridge with cold water, then dumping in enough sugar to fill to just about the second ridge (ie, 1:1 by volume), then stirring over a period of time until it all dissolves. And if it doesn't, throw in another bucket of water! For the calculationally inclined, you can play with a Javascript calculator at http://www.beekeeping.co.nz/info/convert.htm#sugarmix2 to see the different effects... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:04:47 -0700 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: Eat (and drink) More Honey In-Reply-To: <200011031206.HAA17976@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Allen Dick wrote: > Of course if we use a preservative, then it has to be a syrup, not honey -- > unfortunately. We cannot call anything but honey, "honey". We would not want > to. That would open the floodgates. Perhaps in the line of honesty and clarity we could call it : "Beehive Golden Honey Syrup" Best regards, Donald Aitken Edmonton Alberta Canada ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:44:10 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: huestis Subject: flavored cream honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I would like to add flavored cream honey to my honey products. Can = someone tell me some recipes for flavored creamed honey? Flavors such = as lemon, orange, cinnamon, strawberry, raspberry, ect. No maple please = let the maple producers sell that. How would you label the products? = Thanks in advance. Clayton Huestis ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:36:34 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: smitch Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This thread has me interested in the syrups and creamed honeys. Will someone direct me in a good direction for receipies. Thanks Scott Mitchell smitch@cavtel.net ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:51:45 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Midnitebee Subject: George's Pink Pages MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings! The Nov.2000 issue of the Pink Pages are now viewable. http://www.cybertours.com/~midnitebee/contentpages/articles.html Herb/Norma Bee Holly-B Apiary PO Box 26 Wells,Maine 04090-0026 "an educated consumer is YOUR best customer" The Beekeeper's Home on the Internet http://www.mainebee.com Stony Critters http://www.stonycritters.com =20 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:18:34 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: U.S. Honey loan Hello all, My local U.S.D.A. office says they haven't recieved information on the "new" 2000 honey loan yet. Has other U.S. bee-l beekeepers had a similar response? I thank the bee-l moderators for posting my information request and you can respond by direct email. Thanks in advance. Bob Harrison busybeeacres@discoverynet.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:58:01 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Residue From Feeding Syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 3 gallons of water 50lbs of sugar for winter 6 gallons of water 50lbs of sugar for spring ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:14:37 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: Beekeeping software Hello all, I am looking for a email or snail mail address for a company selling a complete beekeeping business software program. I remember a program CD offered in the bee magazines a few years ago. Reply to me by direct email please. Thanks in advance! Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:49:57 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: Sampling honey for AFB MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Robert Mann wrote: > > While we're on AFB spores, could anyone state proof they're not > significantly spread in foundation? While not exactly proof, it is interesting to note that the "old time" beekeepers from South Africa had always relied on foundation imported from the USA (beautifully packed with thin layers of paper in between each sheet). A law was passed in the mid 1900's banning the importation of wax, honey and used beekeeping equipment into South Africa. That has recently been changed to allow wax for pharmaceutical purposes only and honey and only if radurised. AFB has to date never been found inside Southern Africa. Sincerely Robert Post ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:20:11 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Residue from feeding syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter. I just checked. Of course UK pints are 20 fluid ounces where I assume US are 16. The difference in weights and measures between countries divided by a common language may account for some recipes not working out well. Chris Slade ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 03:38:29 +0100 Reply-To: Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jorn Johanesson Subject: SV: Residue from feeding syrup In-Reply-To: <20001107005537.PTVX29032.fepE.post.tele.dk@SEGATE.SUNET.SE> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sendt: 7. november 2000 01:20 > Til: BEE-L@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU > Emne: Re: Residue from feeding syrup > weights and measures between countries divided by a common language may > account for some recipes not working out well. So if we talk sugar and water then just make it simple. one bucket of water one bucket of grain sugar is very close the same weight. the weight of one bucket of water is a little more than the bucket of sugar, but not much. Best regards Jorn Johanesson Multilingual software for beekeeping since 1997 hive note- queen breeding and handheld computer beekeeping software full revised and bug tested 20-09-2000 home page = HTTP://apimo.dk e-mail Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:47:31 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: Re: Sampling honey for AFB In-Reply-To: <200011070052.TAA05555@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Robert Post wrote: >While not exactly proof, it is interesting to note that the "old time" >beekeepers from South Africa had always relied on foundation imported from the >USA (beautifully packed with thin layers of paper in between each sheet). >A law >was passed in the mid 1900's banning the importation of wax, honey and used >beekeeping equipment into South Africa. This may have been nothing more definite or postively-based than an early application of the precautionary principle. It may even have been protection for an infant S. African industry making bee gear including foundation. Or it may conceivably have been a political reprisal of some sort. The facts given are some way from evidence regarding whether viable AFB spores can be spread in foundation. I remain astonished that this question of fact is so hard to get answered. >That has recently been changed to allow >wax for pharmaceutical purposes only and honey and only if radurised. This may very well be a minor triumph for that ultimate 'technology looking for an application', million-rad doses from cobalt-60. Other PR euphemisms for this irradiation include 'radappetisation'. It is just the nuclear industry trying to improve its image by making out that an intractable radioactive byproduct is useful. Beekeepers should be wary of being used for this PR purpose. R - Robt Mann consultant ecologist P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:58:18 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: steven.turner@ZBEE.COM Organization: ZbeeNet computer networking for beekeepers Subject: The 70th National Honey Show News 70th National Honey Show News At the URL: http://www.honeyshow.co.uk/70thnhsnews.htm The National Honey Show 16th,17th & 18th November 2000 at Kensington Town Hall, London. UK. Full programme at the URL: http://www.honeyshow.co.uk/2000intro.shtml Main Site URL: http://www.honeyshow.co.uk BeeData URL: http://www.beedata.com Regards Steve in London .. When you go in search of honey you must expect to be stung by bees. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:26:12 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: Whitewashed and returned... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/1/00 2:39:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, kim@AIROOT.COM writes: > An interesting thought on this clay application...it is similar in particle > size to talcum powder, and some pollens. Will it be easily removed by bees > and returned to the hive? Bees collect substances that are similar in size > to pollen that are not pollen...every experienced beekeeper has observed > this behavior in sawdust piles and bird feeders. Food for thought, and maybe > for larvae honey bees? In response to my inquiries I got the following response showing that the issue has been considered and tested, which is reassuring.... From: JOHN_MOSKO@ENGELHARD.COM Dear Dave, Thanks for the question. We have studied particle film effects on bees and the results were very positive. Here's what we know: Tests done that followed the EPA protocol showed no adult bee mortality when applied directly to the adult bees nor when fed to adult bees. In a pear and apple orchard study, particle films did not deter bee foraging and pollination when applied during bloom. With all of the 60,000 or so acre treatments we have done in 2000, we have heard of no instances of detrimental effects to hives where bees were foraging in particle film-treated crops. A key point is that Surround Crop Protectant is rarely applied during bloom periods. If it were applied during bloom, it would only be applied weekly, so only a certain percentage of blooms would be open for a given spray. On top of that, the film would have to directly hit and presumably cover the flower; and then the adult would have to carry it back to the hive. (Since the bees forage directly in the flower, prebloom coatings that remain on leaves or branches would not affect them.) Thanks, John Mosko Surround Crop Protectant From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Jan 14 07:55:35 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 HAA05155 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:55:33 -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 HAA00231 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:58:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101141258.HAA00231@listserv.albany.edu> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:58:29 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8d)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0011A" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Status: RO Content-Length: 119400 Lines: 2609 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:46:54 +0100 Reply-To: Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jorn Johanesson Subject: Apimondia new dates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Source president for Apimondia Asger Soegaard Joergensen who is also beekeeping consultant in Denmark E-Mail asj@krl.dk The Apimondia Congress has moved to 28. October - 1. November 2001. Still in Durban South Africa reason is that South Africa is elected as host for a world conference against racism, discrimination and fear of strangers in Durban 17/8 to 10/9 2001. it gave a time conflict so Apimondia decided to move to another date, though still in South Africa. Best regards Jorn Johanesson Multilingual software for beekeeping since 1997 hive note- queen breeding and handheld computer beekeeping software full revised and bug tested 20-09-200 home page = HTTP://apimo.dk e-mail Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:39:48 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Barta, Adrian DATCP" Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dave Hamilton wrote: > I would like to start some discussion of Marla Spivik's > article in ABJ. She > advocates periodic replacing frames and not using > prophylactic treatments > with Terramycin. I was glad to see Dr. Spivak's suggestions in ABJ. Resistance management is a battle the rest of agriculture has been waging for some time. We beekeepers are just now joining the fray; perhaps we can avoid some of the problems other farmers have suffered. It seems clear from other systems that exclusive dependence on chemical control is not sustainable. All chemicals will fail, sooner or later. With judicious use, we can slow the development of resistance, but that means minimal, targeted use. In apples, for example, it's usually assumed that you can use a new fungicide 20 times in an orchard before you begin to see resistance--growers can decide if they want to use it five times a year for four years, or twice a year for ten years and fill in with other chemicals. The New Zealanders have made due for years without Terramycin. Good information on their approach is available at http://www.beekeeping.co.nz/disease/index.htm Aggressive inspection and rigorous cleanliness seem to be the basis of their efforts. Perhaps someone from there could comment? This approach, along with hygienic queens and routine comb replacement (as Dave Hamilton suggested), should go a long way toward reducing AFB. The worst possible response to Terramycin-resistant AFB is one I've had people admit to me--non-labeled chemicals. You think the Alar incident damaged the apple market? Wait until the tylosin scare hits the honey market. (Though it might do my cut comb sales some good....) An integrated approach using a number of techniques will allow us to prevent losses from pests while extending the useful life of our chemical control measures. Beekeeping survived before Terramycin; we'll probably make it after Terramycin. Adrian ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:01:31 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain > It seems clear from other systems that exclusive dependence > on chemical > control is not sustainable. All chemicals will fail, sooner > or later. With > judicious use, we can slow the development of resistance, but > that means > minimal, targeted use. In apples, for example, it's usually > assumed that > you can use a new fungicide 20 times in an orchard before you > begin to see > resistance--growers can decide if they want to use it five > times a year for > four years, or twice a year for ten years and fill in with > other chemicals. > [cut] > > The worst possible response to Terramycin-resistant AFB is > one I've had > people admit to me--non-labeled chemicals. You think the > Alar incident > damaged the apple market? Wait until the tylosin scare hits the honey > market. (Though it might do my cut comb sales some good....) > As far as I know, in the United States there is exactly one chemical available for AFB, the above mentioned Terramycin. In the example of the Apple growers we do not see an agressive move to stop using fungicide treatments, but to rotate them. Don't misunderstand me on this, if non-chemical treatments can help reduce the need of chemical treatments then bring them in. What I would like to see is additional approved chemical treatments to allow rotation and reduce resistance. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:16:08 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Hamilton Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I think the change is more mental than chemical. We have to learn to recognize AFB, check often then treat. Too often it has been presented as something you must do twice each fall so that you don't get AFB. New beekeepers are taught this is a danger instead of a problem to be solved. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:16:05 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: FW: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Wait until the tylosin scare ... > hits the honey > As far as I know, in the United States there is exactly one chemical > available for AFB, the above mentioned Terramycin. >From a reputable, recently retired source: Expect tylosin to be approved for AFB treatment in beehives within a year or two. Aaron Morris - I think, therefore I bee! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:01:13 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: New whitewash reduces pesticide use MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A whitewash made from clay (yup, clay!) may improve the possibilities of organic fruit production. At least is has the potential to greatly reduce pesticide use, because it makes a physical barrier for insects. It also protects fruit from damaging spectra of light, can serve as a frost barrier and has many other advantages that are yet unexplored. Best of all, it's nontoxic (some of the pills you take have kaolin clay as a base). I expect it should be nontoxic to bees. The full story: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov00/white1100.htm Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:50:39 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Kim Flottum, Editor Bee Culture" Subject: Whitewashed and returned... In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit An interesting thought on this clay application...it is similar in particle size to talcum powder, and some pollens. Will it be easily removed by bees and returned to the hive? Bees collect substances that are similar in size to pollen that are not pollen...every experienced beekeeper has observed this behavior in sawdust piles and bird feeders. Food for thought, and maybe for larvae honey bees? Kim Flottum Editor, Bee Culture Magazine 1-800-289-7668 x3214 623 W. Liberty St. Medina OH 44256 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:39:47 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All ----- Original Message ----- From: Barta, Adrian Here in UK we have a destruction policy for AFB, absolutely no exceptions...There are many of us here that think this policy should be extended to EFB as well. Marla Spivak has some very interesting information and ideas that some of us in UK are trying to propagate (she is also better looking than many of our UK lecturers!). We are not against chemicals per se but we have some bee breeders that have a head start in selecting for hygenic behaviour. If that results in less chemical use, all well and good. Best Regards, Dave Cushman G8MZY Email: dave.cushman@lineone.net Website...Beekeeping and Bee Breeding http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:03:20 -0700 Reply-To: jslavett@worldnet.att.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jeffrey Lavett Subject: Re: Producing Propolis MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My experience indicates this. My first queen came from a different source than the 20 packages installed the second year of keeping bees. Second source colonies all showed a much greater amount of propolis than the first colony, although they, too, varied amongst themselves in this respect. The first queen's daughter, granddaughter, etc. each showed increasing propensity for propolis until, now, the great-great grandaughters' colony shows fully as much propolis as any of the second source queens. CSlade777@AOL.COM wrote: > > There seems to be a genetic component in the propensity to collect propolis. > I have one hive in an apiary of 5 that is collecting far more than all the > rest put together with no apparent reason. > > Chris Slade ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:55:01 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dan hendricks Subject: TM in honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, List. Will someone please direct me to the research report which quantifies the amount of terramycin which has been detected in honey intended for extraction (or comb intended for human consumption) when the TM has been applied in patties or dust (not syrup)? I have been trying without success to catch my bees storing crisco above the queen excluder. Dan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? >From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. http://experts.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 11:27:30 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: fw: GM crop - bee disease link etc. Comments: To: NZNBAList@egroups.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" GM crop - bee disease link etc. Originated from: ngin@icsenglish.com Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin) http://members.tripod.com/~ngin --- 1. Bee disease - GM crop connection possible 2. Testimony with more detail on GMO and bees --- Looking at the issue of GMOs and bees in general and more specifically a possible connection between the US, Canada, on the one hand, and Argentina, on the other, involving (a) the widespread and recent cultivation of GM crops containing tetracycline resistant genes and (b) the sudden simultaneous emergence of tetracycline resistance in bees in these two geographically isolated areas, resulting in disease devastation of bee colonies that had previously been easily treatable against the world's mosty dangerous bee disease. --- 1. Bee disease - GM crop connection possible http://www.biotech-info.net/bee_j_editorial.html "Letter to the editors of bee journals" Joe Rowland Commercial Beekeeper Secretary/Treasurer of the Empire State (New York) Honey Producers Association October 2000 AFB - GM crop connection possible Dear Editor, The New York State Legislature has been considering enactment of a moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops, and/or requiring labeling of products containing GM ingredients. State legislative committees held public hearings on this subject during October 2000. I was invited to testify at these hearings. Although I am no authority on the topic, I decided to review publicly available information pertaining to the possible impact of GM crops on honeybees, and present this material at the hearing. I identified three main areas of concern. 1.There is an alarming lack of publicly available information evaluating the effects of GM crops on bees. Biotechnology corporations fund research on GM crops in their efforts to gain regulatory approval for the marketing of GM varieties of corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, and other crops. This research supposedly proves beyond a reasonable doubt that these novel genetic combinations are safe to introduce into the environment. Canadian researcher, Mark Winston, recently attempted to gain access to the results of research that assessed the effects of GM crops on honeybees. Canadian government authorities acknowledged that such research had been conducted, but refused to provide any details. Their refusal was attributed to the fact that such research is confidential and owned by the undisclosed biotechnology corporations who funded the studies in question. I believe FDA/EPA policy is similar in this regard. This lack of openness raises serious credibility issues regarding corporate claims about the safety of GM crops. If their research is solid, then why is it kept secret? 2.Laboratory studies carried out by the French government research institute INRA indicate that pollen from some GM crops shortens the lifespan of adult bees. Also, it seems to cause some learning dysfunctions that could result in the disorientation of foraging bees. Disoriented bees may become lost or unable to locate nectar sources. 3.Possibly the most important public disclosure came out in June, 2000, when German researchers at Jena University showed that genetic material from GM canola crossed the species barrier, and was positively identified in bacteria that reside in the guts of honeybees. I believe this is the first publicly documented case of horizontal gene transfer from GM crops to bacteria. This discovery may have major implications for the future of GM crops. One main objection to GM crops has focused on the fact that during genetic manipulations required to create GMOs, antibiotic-resistant "marker" genes are combined with the so-called genes of interest. These combined genes are inserted into the target plant. Within the plant, the antibiotic resistant gene has no expression and is harmless. However, if this gene were able to transfer from the GM plant and enter another bacterium, that bacterium would become antibiotic-resistant. This might render commonly used antibiotics useless against diseases attacking humans and livestock, including honeybees. Bees in the US are increasingly afflicted with a strain of antibiotic resistant American foulbrood (AFB). Before the advent of antibiotics, this bacterial infection was the most serious bee disease in the world. Tetracycline had been used effectively against AFB for 40 years until 1996. In that year, tetracycline resistance was confirmed in both Argentina and the upper Midwestern states of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Since then, it has spread to at least 17 states in the US, including New York, and to parts of Canada. During the 1990s, millions of acres of Round-up Ready crops were planted in the US, Canada, and Argentina. According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was resistant to tetracycline. After 40 years of effective usage against an infective bacterium found in the guts of honeybees, suddenly two geographically isolated countries develop tetracycline resistance simultaneously. A common thread between the US, Canada and Argentina is the widespread and recent cultivation of GM crops containing tetracycline resistant genes. I spoke about this with Dr. Hachiro Shimanuki, who until recently was the research leader of the USDA/ARS bee research lab in Beltsville, MD. He is not aware of any attempt to analyze the resistant foulbrood for genetic pollution from GM crops. I think that the technology exists to be able to determine whether these AFB bacteria have the Round-up Ready gene. That gene should have tagged along with the tetracycline resistant gene if in fact this antibiotic resistant AFB was due to horizontal gene transfer between GM crops and foulbrood bacteria. I want to stress the speculative nature of this possible GMO/antibiotic resistant AFB connection. However, if it is true, the public health implications are enormous. A documented antibiotic resistant gene transfer into a disease organism would strongly indicate that the FDA should re-assess the potential human risks associated with GM crops, and possibly revoke federal approval for the sale and consumption of some of these modified plants. As an industry, I think we should immediately request, through our local, state, and national associations, that the FDA analyze samples of antibiotic resistant AFB in order to determine whether or not a genetic transfer has occurred from GM crops. If we act together, the FDA will find our combined resolutions to be a powerful stimulus to investigate this matter in a timely fashion. Biotech corporations have maintained that we should trust their research findings that secretly prove to Federal regulators that GM crops are safe. I would suggest that it would be wise to maintain a healthy skepticism on this matter. Often there is a fundamental conflict between the corporate interest in short-term profit, and the public interest in the health and safety of the people. In fact, we have recently seen examples of this conflict exposed in the courts concerning other corporations. I believe that we all are now participating in a vast GMO experiment without our informed consent. Many European beekeepers are fiercely opposed to the cultivation of GM crops in the vicinity of their apiaries. It is well within the realm of possibility that we should be too. Sincerely, Joe Rowland 2495, Montrose Turnpike, Owego,NY 13827 --- 2. GMO testimony Submitted by Joe Rowland to the N.Y. Assembly standing committees on agriculture, consumer affairs and the assembly task force on food, farm, and nutrition policy October 3, 2000 Thank-you for inviting me to testify on the subject of genetically modified organisms. I'm a commercial beekeeper, and the secretary/treasurer of the Empire State Honey Producers Association. I also sit on the executive committee of U.S. Beekeepers, a national trade association. Honeybees are an important component of our agricultural economy. Many crops are dependent on honeybee pollination for cost effective production. A recently published Cornell study set the honeybee's value to U.S. agriculture at 14.6 billion dollars. An additional value accrues to home gardeners and wildlife who forage on wild seeds and fruit set as a result of bee pollination. Over ? of the 3 million colonies kept in the U.S. are now trucked around the country for the purpose of pollinating our crops. Thousands of colonies are moved into N.Y. every year and provide a valuable service to N.Y. farmers and consumers. Sadly, bees and beekeepers have had a rough time recently. We must contend with 3 exotic pests introduced over the past 15 years. The wholesale price of honey in inflation-adjusted dollars is lower than at any time since World War II. There also has been a resurgence of American Foulbrood, which had been successfully controlled by antibiotics in the past. Are GMO's a real or potential threat to honeybees? I've tried to answer this question by searching for publicly available research on the subject and by drawing on my own knowledge of honeybee biology. Honeybees collect and consume nectar and pollen. Nectar is a complex sugar solution which provides carbohydrates. There is very little protein from forage plants in nectar. Since GM plants generally express their special characteristics in the form of biologically active proteins, there is probably not much danger to bees from nectar. Pollen is their protein source, and when collected from GM crops, contains the modified gene structure of the GMO. It may also contain novel proteins produced by the modified plant. Pollen is the male fertilizing component of flowering plants and so is a concentrated source of genetic material. Damaging effects to bees from GMO's are most likely to result from pollen. A colony of honeybees will collect and consume approximately 75 lbs of pollen in a year. Corn, canola, soybeans, and cotton yield pollen that is collected by bees within foraging range of these crops. All of these crops have GM varieties which are extensively cultivated in the U.S. Field tests in England have shown that bee colonies 4.5 km from GM canola fields collect GM pollen. Bees forage in all directions, and pollen grains are transferred between bees within the colony through bodily contact. It is theoretically possible that small quantities of GM pollen can be transported up to 9 km from GM crops. The recommended isolation distance between GM crops and non-GM crops in England is 200 meters for corn, and 50 meters for canola. It seems to me that these distances are arbitrary and based more on convenience than on actual isolation of GM crops. Professor Mark Winston, a Canadian bee research specialist, has attempted to review scientific studies pertaining to bees and GMO's. As you might expect, most GM research has been conducted by the biotechnology companies who create GMO's. What I did not expect is that this research is considered proprietary information, and not subject to public scrutiny. Prof. Winston contacted the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and encountered a brick wall. Their response was that, yes, honeybee larvae or adults had been examined in tests with GM pollen. They would not reveal what GM crops were tested, who did the testing, what the experimental protocol was, or the results of the tests. Information which is absolutely essential for the independent validation of Biotech company claims regarding the safety of GMO's is unavailable to the GMO consuming public. It is my understanding that FDA policy is similar to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This veil of secrecy does not serve the public interest and should be lifted as a precondition for EPA approval of GMO's. Proprietary research on presently approved GMO's should also be publicly accessible. There are a few publicly reported studies regarding the effect of GM pollen on honeybees. Minh-Ha Pham Deleque has done some work on this area for the French government research institute, INRA. She has studied the effects of GM pollen from varieties of canola and soybeans on honeybees in a laboratory setting. Her findings indicate that none of the tested pollens kill adult bees outright, but that they may shorten their lifespan and cause some behavioral changes, particularly in a loss of their ability to learn and to smell. This may cause foraging bees to "forget" where flowers or even their own hive is located. Obviously, some issues have been raised by this work which need to be further explored. The most important research finding in this area has recently come from Jena University in Germany. Researchers there have shown that a gene used in GM canola transferred to bacteria in the guts of bees. I believe this is the first publicly documented case of horizontal gene transfer from GM crops to bacteria within any animal. This discovery may have major implications for the future of GM crops. One main objection to GM crops has focused on the fact that during genetic manipulations required to create GMO's, antibiotic resistant "marker" genes are combined with the so-called genes of interest. These combined genes are inserted into the target plant together. Within the plant, the antibiotic resistant gene has no expression and is harmless. However, if this gene were able to transfer out of the GM plant and re-enter a bacterium, this bacterium would become antibiotic resistant. This might render commonly used antibiotics useless against diseases attacking humans and livestock, including honeybees. At the beginning of my testimony, I mentioned the fact that bees in the U.S. are increasingly afflicted with a strain of antibiotic resistant American Foulbrood (AFB). Before the advent of antibiotics, this bacterial infection was the most serious bee disease in the world. Tetracycline had been used effectively against AFB for 40 years until 1996. In that year, tetracycline resistance was confirmed in both Argentina and the upper Midwestern states of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Since then, it has spread to at least 17 states, including New York. During the 1990's, millions of acres of Round-up Ready crops were planted in the U.S. and Argentina. According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was resistant to tetracycline. After 40 years of effective usage against an infective bacterium found in the guts of honeybees, suddenly 2 geographically isolated countries develop tetracycline resistance simultaneously. A common thread between the U.S. and Argentina is the widespread and recent cultivation of GM crops containing tetracycline resistant genes. I spoke about this with Dr. Haricho Shimanuki who until recently was the research leader of the USDA/ARS bee research lab in Beltsville, M.D. Dr. Shimanuki is not aware of any attempt to analyze the resistant foulbrood for genetic pollution from GM crops. I think that with the proper equipment these bacteria could be inspected for the presence of the Round-up Ready gene. That gene should have tagged along with the tetracycline resistant gene if in fact this unlikely coincidence was due to horizontal gene transfer between GM crops and foulbrood bacteria. Since the public health implications of this are of major proportions, I would urge you to immediately direct funds to a suitable independent research facility such as Cornell for the purpose of determining whether or not this unwelcome gene transfer has occurred. If so, the state of N.Y. should recommend to the FDA that the approval for GM crops containing antibiotic resistant gene markers be reviewed and possibly revoked immediately. Biotech corporations have maintained that we should trust their research findings which secretly prove to Federal regulators that GM crops are safe. I would suggest that it would be wise to maintain a healthy skepticism on this matter. Often there is a fundamental conflict between the corporate interest in short term profit, and the public interest in the health and safety of the people. In fact, we have recently seen examples of this conflict exposed in the courts concerning other corporations. I think there are enough valid uncertainties about GMO's to justify NYS to require labeling of GM foods. The world is now participating in a vast GMO experiment. New Yorkers should have the choice of opting out of this experiment if they so desire. GM food labeling would partially provide this option. Thank you. --- - Robt Mann consultant ecologist P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:20:27 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: P-O Gustafsson Subject: Request MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A group of beekeepers from Sweden will visit the Canary Islands end of november and wish to get in touch with beekeepers there. If you have any contact info, please reply to me direct and not to the list. -- Regards P-O Gustafsson, Sweden beeman@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~beeman/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:13:39 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Paul Cherubini Subject: Industry says no link between Gaucho or Regent and bee deaths MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/001026/l26112442.html PARIS, Oct 26 (Reuters) - European chemicals giant Aventis (NYSE:AVE - news) on Thursday denied any link between its pesticide Regent and a mystery illness which has devastated the bee population in parts of France. Aventis CropScience France, the company's French agricultural unit, said in a statement that Regent did not belong to the category of so-called systemic pesticides which honey makers blame for intoxicating bees, causing scores to die. Systemic pesticides are spread via the sap into the plant. Protests by beekeepers have targeted mainly Gaucho, a pesticide made by Bayer AG , but have also called Regent into question. Both products are used to coat seeds and both are designed to protect sunseed crops against insects,but Aventis said its product functioned in a different manner from systemic pesticides. ``Regent TS has none of the characteristics questioned by beekeepers. Regent TS is a non-systemic insecticide. This property means that in no event is it carried via the sap into the upper areas of the plant,'' the company said. ``The fact is that these characteristics allow no contact between the bee and the product,'' it added. The Farm Ministry, responding to concerns about so-called ``mad bee disease'', in January 1999 suspended use of Bayer's Gaucho pesticide on sunseeds as a precautionary measure. But beekeepers said the measure was insufficient, as studies found that Gaucho left a residue which meant that even after two years, plants sown on the same spot as the crop originally treated contained traces of the product. They are demanding the ban be extended to wheat, barley, maize and sugar beet crops which are currently treated with systemic pesticides, mainly to protect them against greenflies. Bayer has confirmed that Gaucho leaves a small residue in nectar and pollen, but said there was no evidence of any link between Gaucho and the drop in bee population affecting mainly central and eastern France. The National Union of French Beekeepers (UNAF) said French honey production fell to around 25,000 tonnes in 1999 from 35,000 tonnes before systemic pesticides were introduced in the early 1990s. The number of hives has plummeted to one million from 1.45 million in 1996. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:02:30 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Brenchley Subject: Re: AFB/EFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From my reading (I'm pretty new to beekeeping), EFB is a stress disease. Melissococcus is endemic, and the disease appears in times when the larvae are fed insufficiently. If this is correct, what purpose would be served by burning EFB hives? An endemic bacillus will not be eliminated either by treatment or by burning; wouldn't it be better to deal with an EFB hive by identifying the cause of the stress and eliminating it? Or is my reasoning cockeyed somewhere? I would totally support burning for AFB, but I wonder where the bees come into contact with spores, given the pattern of sporadic isolated outbreaks? Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:52:36 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Stan Sandler Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dave Cushman wrote: >Here in UK we have a destruction policy for AFB, absolutely no >exceptions...There are >many of us here that think this policy should be extended to EFB as well. Fantastic, Dave! Since you think that EFB infected hives should be destroyed and not sterilized then you must have the elusive data that I have been seeking on how long EFB remains infective in equipment (it is NOT spore forming). Surely you wouldn't advocate something as extreme as destruction without knowing such a basic fact. And since no one else on the list was able to provide an answer to that question (I posted it three times a month ago under the subject heading: EFB sterilization) I look forward very much to your response. The other responses to that thread often mentioned that antibiotics were not being used in many places, and the bees were being requeened and moved to better foraging as treatment. But no one mentioned destruction (or even sterilization). Are there any places in the world where EFB hives are destroyed? If so on what basis do they justify this? (I exclude New Zealand. Since it has not found s. pluton so far, I certainly would assume it would destroy anything that tested positive for s. pluton and was not Half Moon Disease.) Regards, Stan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:07:47 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jerry Ameel Subject: MBA Site is open In-Reply-To: <200010142002.QAA18765@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The New "Michigan Beekeepers Association" web site is launched. We are encouraging Michigan beekeepers to sign on, view and comment. Opinions from all beekeepers welcome. Thanks, Jake www.mi-beekeepers.org ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:23:06 -0500 Reply-To: arl@q7.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Al Subject: Re: Honey, labeling, nutrition In-Reply-To: <200010252325.TAA21996@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I found this breakfast cereal the other day" "Honey Puffed Kashi" distributed byt he Kashi Company. Ingredients: Honey, Whole Oats, Long Grain Brown Rice, Whole Rye, Whole Hard Winter Wheat, Whole Trinticale, Whole Buckwheat, Whole Barley, Sesame Seeds. It tastes pretty good. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:42:03 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: GMO Testimony from Joe Rowland MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The following is posted with permission from Joe Rowland, a beekeeper in Central New York. Although speculative in nature, Joe raises some interesting possibilities that bear investigation. GMO testimony submitted by Joe Rowland to the N.Y. Assembly standing committees on agriculture, consumer affairs, and the assembly task force on food, farm, and nutrition policy. 3rd October 2000. Thank-you for inviting me to testify on the subject of genetically modified organisms. I'm a commercial beekeeper, and the secretary/treasurer of the Empire State Honey Producers Association. I also sit on the executive committee of U.S. Beekeepers, a national trade association. Honeybees are an important component of our agricultural economy. Many crops are dependent on honeybee pollination for cost effective production. A recently published Cornell study set the honeybee's value to U.S. agriculture at 14.6 billion dollars. An additional value accrues to home gardeners and wildlife who forage on wild seeds and fruit set as a result of bee pollination. Over ? of the 3 million colonies kept in the U.S. are now trucked around the country for the purpose of pollinating our crops. Thousands of colonies are moved into N.Y. every year and provide a valuable service to N.Y. farmers and consumers. Sadly, bees and beekeepers have had a rough time recently. We must contend with 3 exotic pests introduced over the past 15 years. The wholesale price of honey in inflation-adjusted dollars is lower than at any time since World War II. There also has been a resurgence of American Foulbrood, which had been successfully controlled by antibiotics in the past. Are GMO's a real or potential threat to honeybees? I've tried to answer this question by searching for publicly available research on the subject and by drawing on my own knowledge of honeybee biology. Honeybees collect and consume nectar and pollen. Nectar is a complex sugar solution which provides carbohydrates. There is very little protein from forage plants in nectar. Since GM plants generally express their special characteristics in the form of biologically active proteins, there is probably not much danger to bees from nectar. Pollen is their protein source, and when collected from GM crops, contains the modified gene structure of the GMO. It may also contain novel proteins produced by the modified plant. Pollen is the male fertilizing component of flowering plants and so is a concentrated source of genetic material. Damaging effects to bees from GMO's are most likely to result from pollen. A colony of honeybees will collect and consume approximately 75 lbs of pollen in a year. Corn, canola, soybeans, and cotton yield pollen that is collected by bees within foraging range of these crops. All of these crops have GM varieties which are extensively cultivated in the U.S. Field tests in England have shown that bee colonies 4.5 km from GM canola fields collect GM pollen. Bees forage in all directions, and pollen grains are transferred between bees within the colony through bodily contact. It is theoretically possible that small quantities of GM pollen can be transported up to 9 km from GM crops. The recommended isolation distance between GM crops and non-GM crops in England is 200 meters for corn, and 50 meters for canola. It seems to me that these distances are arbitrary and based more on convenience than on actual isolation of GM crops. Professor Mark Winston, a Canadian bee research specialist, has attempted to review scientific studies pertaining to bees and GMO's. As you might expect, most GM research has been conducted by the biotechnology companies who create GMO's. What I did not expect is that this research is considered proprietary information, and not subject to public scrutiny. Prof. Winston contacted the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and encountered a brick wall. Their response was that, yes, honeybee larvae or adults had been examined in tests with GM pollen. They would not reveal what GM crops were tested, who did the testing, what the experimental protocol was, or the results of the tests. Information which is absolutely essential for the independent validation of Biotech company claims regarding the safety of GMO's is unavailable to the GMO consuming public. It is my understanding that FDA policy is similar to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This veil of secrecy does not serve the public interest and should be lifted as a precondition for EPA approval of GMO's. Proprietary research on presently approved GMO's should also be publicly accessible. There are a few publicly reported studies regarding the effect of GM pollen on honeybees. Minh-Ha Pham Deleque has done some work on this area for the French government research institute, INRA. She has studied the effects of GM pollen from varieties of canola and soybeans on honeybees in a laboratory setting. Her findings indicate that none of the tested pollens kill adult bees outright, but that they may shorten their lifespan and cause some behavioral changes, particularly in a loss of their ability to learn and to smell. This may cause foraging bees to "forget" where flowers or even their own hive is located. Obviously, some issues have been raised by this work which need to be further explored. The most important research finding in this area has recently come from Jena University in Germany. Researchers there have shown that a gene used in GM canola transferred to bacteria in the guts of bees. I believe this is the first publicly documented case of horizontal gene transfer from GM crops to bacteria within any animal. This discovery may have major implications for the future of GM crops. One main objection to GM crops has focused on the fact that during genetic manipulations required to create GMO's, antibiotic resistant "marker" genes are combined with the so-called genes of interest. These combined genes are inserted into the target plant together. Within the plant, the antibiotic resistant gene has no expression and is harmless. However, if this gene were able to transfer out of the GM plant and re-enter a bacterium, this bacterium would become antibiotic resistant. This might render commonly used antibiotics useless against diseases attacking humans and livestock, including honeybees. At the beginning of my testimony, I mentioned the fact that bees in the U.S. are increasingly afflicted with a strain of antibiotic resistant American Foulbrood (AFB). Before the advent of antibiotics, this bacterial infection was the most serious bee disease in the world. Tetracycline had been used effectively against AFB for 40 years until 1996. In that year, tetracycline resistance was confirmed in both Argentina and the upper Midwestern states of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Since then, it has spread to at least 17 states, including New York. During the 1990's, millions of acres of Round-up Ready crops were planted in the U.S. and Argentina. According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was resistant to tetracycline. After 40 years of effective usage against an infective bacterium found in the guts of honeybees, suddenly 2 geographically isolated countries develop tetracycline resistance simultaneously. A common thread between the U.S. and Argentina is the widespread and recent cultivation of GM crops containing tetracycline resistant genes. I spoke about this with Dr. Haricho Shimanuki who until recently was the research leader of the USDA/ARS bee research lab in Beltsville, M.D. Dr. Shimanuki is not aware of any attempt to analyze the resistant foulbrood for genetic pollution from GM crops. I think that with the proper equipment these bacteria could be inspected for the presence of the Round-up Ready gene. That gene should have tagged along with the tetracycline resistant gene if in fact this unlikely coincidence was due to horizontal gene transfer between GM crops and foulbrood bacteria. Since the public health implications of this are of major proportions, I would urge you to immediately direct funds to a suitable independent research facility such as Cornell for the purpose of determining whether or not this unwelcome gene transfer has occurred. If so, the state of N.Y. should recommend to the FDA that the approval for GM crops containing antibiotic resistant gene markers be reviewed and possibly revoked immediately. Biotech corporations have maintained that we should trust their research findings which secretly prove to Federal regulators that GM crops are safe. I would suggest that it would be wise to maintain a healthy skepticism on this matter. Often there is a fundamental conflict between the corporate interest in short term profit, and the public interest in the health and safety of the people. In fact, we have recently seen examples of this conflict exposed in the courts concerning other corporations. I think there are enough valid uncertainties about GMO's to justify NYS to require labeling of GM foods. The world is now participating in a vast GMO experiment. New Yorkers should have the choice of opting out of this experiment if they so desire. GM food labeling would partially provide this option. Thank-you. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:50:06 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: AFB/EFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Robert Brenchley wrote: > I would totally support burning for AFB, but I wonder > where the bees come into contact with spores, given the > pattern of sporadic isolated outbreaks? The most common source is from contaminated honey. Within an operation this can be from exchanging frames from hive to hive or putting wet supers out for the bees. Between operations, it's usually your neighbors bees (written tounge in cheek). Seriously, the most common source of AFB spores is from contaminated honey. Aaron Morris - I think, therefore I bee! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:52:36 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Hamilton Subject: Re: AFB/EFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain < Robert Brenchley wrote ..EFB is a stress disease. Melissococcus is endemic ..An endemic bacillus will not be eliminated either by treatment or by burning > I believe AFB is also endemic .. a study here awhile back found reported AFB spore counts in many honey samples. Thus, I think your argument is valid for AFB as well. Burning is probably needed when it isn't caught in time and treated. Foci of AFB in a hive will responded to treatment vs when entire hive body is rotting and no amount of terramycin will save them .. also not a good environment to start a new colony, thus burn it. Management is probably the operative thought. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Robert Brenchley [mailto:RSBrenchley@AOL.COM] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 04:03 AM To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: AFB/EFB From my reading (I'm pretty new to beekeeping), EFB is a stress disease. Melissococcus is endemic, and the disease appears in times when the larvae are fed insufficiently. If this is correct, what purpose would be served by burning EFB hives? An endemic bacillus will not be eliminated either by treatment or by burning; wouldn't it be better to deal with an EFB hive by identifying the cause of the stress and eliminating it? Or is my reasoning cockeyed somewhere? I would totally support burning for AFB, but I wonder where the bees come into contact with spores, given the pattern of sporadic isolated outbreaks? Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:42:01 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: Re: New whitewash reduces pesticide use MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all, I've been offline for a week or so as I've been moving. I'm glad to see the "Honey, Labeling, Nutrition" thread has provoked some interesting commentary. Regarding this new clay whitewash, I spoke to an organic apple orchardist in northern New Hampshire who said that the great barrier to the creation of an organic apple industry east of the Mississippi is the presence of the plum curculio, a North American native species that can devastate apple orchards. This is why most organic apples, I am told, are grown out West or are imported. Michael Phillips, author of "The Apple Grower" on organic apple orcharding (Chelsea Green), said he knows Eastern orchardists who would like to break the green market but are stymied by the plum curculio. From memory, I think he said thbe pest is currently controlled with an organophosphate. He said a new breakthrough was coming that would open up an organic apple industry in the East: clay. I haven't heard anything else about it since he said it to me last year, so thanks for posting the info. Kim raises an interesting point though: <> As others have observed in previous threads, just because a substance is labeled organic, it isn't necessarily benign in the environment. As the scientists say, "More data is needed." If the use of clay becomes prevalent, observant beekeepers should share their field notes about its effects. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:36:43 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: Re: Whitewashed and returned... In-Reply-To: <200011011855.NAA18318@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:50 PM 11/1/00 -0500, you wrote: When MT ST Helen erupted, the ash, which was mostly a fine sand that resembled talc was hard on brood and other insect larvae, both from ingestion and for caterpillars, from dessication and abrasion. Jerry Jerry J. Bromenshenk, Ph.D. Director, DOE/EPSCoR & Montana Organization for Research in Energy The University of Montana-Missoula Missoula, MT 59812-1002 E-Mail: jjbmail@selway.umt.edu Tel: 406-243-5648 Fax: 406-243-4184 http://www.umt.edu/biology/more http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:48:03 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All The thread I am following here is the destruction of colonies and flaming of hives for EFB There have been numerous replies both on and off list but for simplicity I will not name them. > Fantastic, Dave! Since you think that EFB infected hives should be > destroyed and not sterilized then you must have the elusive data that I have > been seeking on how long EFB remains infective in equipment (it is NOT spore > forming). Surely you wouldn't advocate something as extreme as destruction > without knowing such a basic fact. I do not have "evidence" or data...My information is anecdotal...I have been collating it mentally for several years based on information passed to me by various bees officers and other contacts in UK. The official standpoint in UK on EFB is light infestations may be treated with terramycin and given fresh foundation. Heavy infestations are destroyed as for AFB. I have never experienced AFB or EFB personally...AFB is rare in UK but EFB is increasing as a secondary effect of varroa and/or it's treatment. The gist of what I have heard is that although colonies survive with treatment they never seem (other peoples subjective observations) to perform as well as expected in comparison to healthy colonies and there is a risk of spreading infection. I have no room for under performance...I want healthy, vigorous bees. A blanket destruction policy for all Foulbrood diseases would eventually eliminate them. I admit, that to some, the cost would be high (particularly in USA). It is only the treatment that allows the long term survival of EFB (regardless of propagation method). Best Regards, Dave Cushman G8MZY Email: dave.cushman@lineone.net Website...Beekeeping and Bee Breeding http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 20:58:39 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: Re: Eat (and drink) More Honey In-Reply-To: <200010251152.HAA00138@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200010251152.HAA00138@listserv.albany.edu>, Lipscomb, Al writes >>What could you call pancake syrup made from watered down pasteurized and >>or preserved honey? > >"Honey flavored Syrup" >"All Natural Honey Flavored Syrup" Flavoured (English - couldn't resist) has a bad reputation IMHO. It implies a chemical produced to taste like honey but actually has nothing whatsoever to do with honey. How about "Honey Syrup", better than "Syrup of Honey"? -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 21:05:27 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey In-Reply-To: <200010251544.LAA08554@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200010251544.LAA08554@listserv.albany.edu>, Allen Dick writes >For local markets, the matter is much simpler and the risks are less. The >opportunities are there. We made a living selling our honey at farmers markets >many years ago, and we found the at the more honey products -- up to about >ten -- we had at our tables, the better we did and the better we could >differentiate ourselves from any competition. Please would you list the 10 honey products? Thanks. -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 21:29:28 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit James, I will reply, only because I have watched your discussions and you have a good head on your shoulders; plus, even though I live in the "colonies", I am 100% Scot and have visited Scotland 6 times in the last 50 years exploring most of the isle. Now, I am disabled by strokes, so my visiting days are over, I reckon. MOST people think that ALL honey is the same, an amber, golden sweet liquid, and unfortunately, that seems to be the limit of their knowledge now in this URBANIZED country where only 2% of the people live on farms. The shocking thing is that 98% of all people know nothing about the importance of honey bee pollination for our human food supply. Most people under 50 years old have no idea what comb honey is, and ask questions like: How do you eat it? How do you get the honey out of the wax? Do you eat the wax? Further, few people have ever seen creamed honey or honey spread, and simply DON'T BELIEVE that it is 100% honey. Hence, I try to move my bees from one bloom to another to get different honeys, particularly different colors from water white locust to pitch black buckwheat. I also buy or swap honeys from other parts of the U. S. to provide "one-stop shopping" or enjoy a "tasting" party among customers. Allen Dick said 10 different things. I haven't counted, but at FAIRS, I sell extracted honeys in bears and jars, cut comb honey, square section honey Ross-Rounds, creamed honey, honey sticks (to attract the kids who attract the parent's wallets), wax candles, wax bars, National Honey Board Cook Books, and MOST IMPORTANT (and profitable), assorted GIFT PACKS. I have numerous Gift Packs; d taste which sells for $8 ($16 per pound of honey), a wooden crate containing 2 three ounce mugs of two different colored honeys + a 12 ounce bear of a third different honey, which totals 18 ounces of honey and sells for $6, equaling $5.33 per pound of honey. I have plain creamed honey, cinnamon creamed honey, and straw- berry creamed honey, which sells for $4 for 12 ounces = $5.33 per pound. I sell comb honey for $1.00 + 25˘ per ounce which equals $5.00/pound. I also sell Chunk Honey which is $4.50 per pound. The extracted honeys are in 1, 2, or 5 pound jars and they sell for $4.00 for 1 pound, $7.00 for 2 pounds, & $15 for 5 pounds. Most beekeepers are not sales inclined and say my prices are too high; but when we are at the same FAIR, I sell much more than they do even at my high prices, because I attract people to the booth and then SELL, not take orders. If I don't sell an average of $100 per hour, either the weather was bad, or the crowd was poor, so I don't go back to that site. In august, we have our 9 day long county FAIR that has almost 1 million paying attendees. Our total Fair sales were almost $10,000 for 9 days. Maybe that is what Allen Dick meant by having 10 things. Having multiple things is important, but I think diversity, attractiveness, "come-ons" like an observation hive, and SALESMANSHIP are more important. Of course, I have had 68 years of experience doing this which helps. I forgot to mention that the average grocery store price of honey in the states is about $2.50 per pound in 1 LB jars. Ending: I have NEVER sold a single jar of honey in my life - I sell the DESIRE of people to have some of George Imirie's honey. James, I hoped I have helped. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:10:40 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Stan Sandler Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dave wrote: >I do not have "evidence" or data...My information is anecdotal... Well, I guess I will hold off on torching several hundred hives of mostly new equipment on the basis on anecdotal evidence. But the silence on this list regarding sterilization is deafening. >I have no room for under performance...I want healthy, vigorous bees. A >blanket destruction policy for all Foulbrood diseases would eventually >eliminate them. You said you DO have a blanket destruction policy is UK for AFB. Has it eliminated it? How long have you had it? Can you point to some place in the world where it has been eliminated (most places I gather have blanket destruction policies for AFB). If EFB is an *endemic* disease, then elimination is hardly an option. >I admit, that to some, the cost would be high (particularly in USA). Yes, the bank might not take kindly to me torching my operation and taking a job driving a potato truck. >It is only the treatment that allows the long term survival of EFB So one would expect it to have been eliminated in all the places that don't treat. >I have no room for under performance...I want healthy, vigorous bees. We have two very different factors here, the animal and the housing. If the animal is sick then you may treat it, or you may decide to destroy it. If the housing is contaminated then you may sterilize it or you may decide to destroy it. In the case of AFB the methods of sterilization are known, as well as the length of time that the spores can remain infective and there is also the persistence of the scales to consider. But no one seems to be able to post anything on those factors regarding EFB (with the exception of Adony's post on EFB and radiation, but radiation is not an option on this island). All the infected honey is now WITH the healthy, vigorous bees. They robbed it. I expect almost all colonies to be dealing with a certain level of bacterial contamination when brood rearing resumes. I presume that there is a certain level that bees can tolerate with no antibiotics, and a certain level that they can tolerate with antibiotics. And I presume that those levels are also affected by environmental/nutritional conditions and by bee genetics. A bacteria that does not form spores can only remain infective in dry equipment for a certain length of time. I find it hard to believe that with an old disease someone has not studied this. I also know that someone on this list has some experience with repopulating EFB deadouts after a certain length of time and perhaps after some treatment of frames (mine are mostly plastic foundation, and I will likely burn the wax ones). I would be very grateful if they would share some knowledge other than anecdotal. Regards, Stan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:46:35 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey In-Reply-To: <200011030414.XAA10970@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Maybe that is what Allen Dick meant by having 10 things. Having multiple > things is important, but I think diversity, attractiveness, "come-ons" like > an observation hive, and SALESMANSHIP are more important. Thanks for answering this, George. I've been pretty busy the last little while. I guess I generally quit at about ten items, because of the hassle of moving things in and out of the market buildings or sites, and the fact that we sometimes hired help when we were going to quite a few markets. That is not to say that more products might not be better. Even if an item hardly ever sells, if it stops people and promotes conversation, it relieves boredom and creates opportunities. Besides, it distinguishes you from the others art the market and makes your honey a distinct product and not just a commodity. We always kept one variety that we charged a hefty premium for (usually buckwheat), just to emphasize that there are differences and to make our main honey type look less costly. We also carried a few 5 gallon pails along to make the others look smaller. People always want the 'middle size'. Sometimes if we had to carry far, we just took empties for show, since we hardly sold any of them, and would go out to the truck for them if we had a real sale. In regard to all the heavy toting of honey, I always thought a lightweight car trailer with drop sides that made into a counter would be ideal. It could be run into the market like a handcart and serve as a table, if it were designed and built right. Such a trailer would need to be dustproof, and be able to be locked -- both against pilfering and against being taken away in its entirety -- but it would eliminate the part of markets I hated the most, carrying in, setting up, tearing down, and carrying out. allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:09:38 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Eat (and drink) More Honey In-Reply-To: <200011022339.SAA04511@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >>What could you call pancake syrup made from watered down pasteurised and > >>or preserved honey? > > > >"Honey flavoured Syrup" > >"All Natural Honey Flavoured Syrup" > How about "Honey Syrup", better than "Syrup > of Honey"? Of course if we use a preservative, then it has to be a syrup, not honey -- unfortunately. We cannot call anything but honey, "honey". We would not want to. That would open the floodgates. If we add water, then it is not a recognised honey grade according to the governments, so we cannot label it as honey without a grade -- and with that moisture level, it would be a low grade just due to the moisture if it were allowed at all. This *is* a problem. If we call it honey syrup, then we are in the same boat with Colonel Saunders and his fake honey called 'honey syrup'. Maybe if we labelled our product as such and called it REAL Honey syrup, "made with only pure honey and the finest mountain (slough?) water" or some such wording we would be able to get the idea across. allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:31:54 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Stan The frames are burned but the hive bodies are scorched internally and are available for re-use. Our destruction policy for AFB has not eliminated it but has reduced it to a very low level. Destruction is only a sensible option if all beekeepers within a geographical area do the same. Feral colonies will be less of an AFB/EFB problem with varroa destroying them but robbing bees will always smell out the last specks of honey in them and it will thus be many years and many re-infestations before the problem is finally eliminated. In UK we have a "Bee Disease Insurance" that gives a small but welcome compensation if destruction of bees is ordered by a bee disease officer. I would not consider EFB as "endemic" there is usually a traceable cause, (in UK this is usually the moving of bees outside controlled "standstill" areas). Best Regards, Dave Cushman G8MZY Email: dave.cushman@lineone.net Website...Beekeeping and Bee Breeding http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:16:36 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: CHANGE OF DATES - IMPORTANT NOTICE MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Adriaan du Toit wrote: > CHANGE OF DATE APIMONDIA 2001 : IMPORTANT NOTICE > NEW DATE: 28 OCTOBER - 1 NOVEMBER 2001 > > The United Nations' High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Mary Benson, > announced on Tuesday, 24 October 2000 in New York that South Africa had > been appointed host country for the 2001 WORLD CONFERENCE AGAINST RACISM, > DISCRIMINATION and XENOPHOBIA. This conference will take place at the > Durban International Convention Centre. The Convention Centre is booked by > the UN for the period 17th August - 10th September 2000. This mega > conference event will be attended by 12,000 delegates and 193 heads of > government plus their personal entourage (including, personal assistants, > body guards, chefs, private aircraft & motor vehicles), bringing to 20,000+ > the total people who would be > involved. As you will note, these dates clash head-on with the planned > activities for > Apimondia 2001. > > We, as the Congress Organisers for Apimondia 2001 were requested by the > South African Government to investigate the possibility of re-scheduling > the Apimondia Congress in order to ensure that this very important World > Congress can be accommodated. In consultation with Asger Jorgenson > (President of Apimondia, Denmark) and Riccardo Jannoni-Sebastianini > (Secretary-General for Apimondia, Italy), and after many discussions we > decided that given the high priority and profile of the UN Racism > Conference, it would be in the best interest to move the Apimondia Congress > to a later date. > > We accept that this change could cause inconvenience. We apologise for this > in advance, but now we must look forward and start again with renewed > enthusiasm to make this forced change beneficial to the Apimondia Congress > and the bee-keeping community internationally. The revised date now falls > outside the South African & African honey harvesting season as well as at > the end of the apple and pear pollination season, we expect greater local > and regional participation, it is also expected to benefit our northern > hemisphere beekeeping colleagues, as they would have finished their winter > preparations. > > WE AGAIN INVITE YOU TO ATTEND THIS MAJOR BEEKEEPING EVENT WHICH WILL TAKE > PLACE FROM 28 OCTOBER - 1 NOVEMBER 2001 AT THE DURBAN INTERNATIONAL > CONVENTION CENTRE, SOUTH AFRICA. > > Please do not hesitate to contact myself (letoit@global.co.za) or the > Congress organising secretariat, Cilla Taylor, (confplan@iafrica.com) if > you have any concerns or comments in regards to this date change. > > Dr Adriaan du Toit > Tel & Fax: Int + 2712 8081762 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 05:57:00 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: smitch Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU George Imirie I hope people are listening..........Hello People are you listening........sell that product and get paid what you are worth. Thanks again George:-) Scott Mitchell ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:43:21 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Greg Hankins Subject: Re: Eat (and drink) More Honey In-Reply-To: <200010250136.VAA19743@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I like Allen's idea of marketing a thinned honey syrup for pancakes and may try it myself. Seems to me the point someone made about packaging it in a syrup-type bottle is a good one. I am curious, though, about the viscosity issue. Is this really what's keeping folks from using honey on their hotcakes? I have some doubt about that; in fact, popular pancake syrups in the US seem to vary in viscosity, as can be demonstrated by a short tour through my syrup-eating history. As a kid raised in the Appalachians, I mostly ate Karo syrup on my pancakes. This is just corn syrup, I believe, and comes in a stronger flavored (with molasses maybe) brwon version and a clear version. I liked the clear best. Both versions of Karo, as I recall, were pretty thick - like a thinner honey. We also had Log Cabin maple flavored syrup, which, as I recall, had a very strong marketing campaign. This was significantly thinner syrup than Karo, but not nearly so thin as real maple syrup. Then along came Mrs Butterworths, a maple and butter flavored syrup considerably thicker than Log Cabin. Seems like I ate this in Jr. High & High School years. Again, a strong marketing campaign, and, I'd bet, a significant impact on Log Cabin's market share, despite (or because of) being more viscous. Finally, I switched to pure maple syrup (the thinnest of all the above) when I moved to New England. Now that I have my own bees, I use honey (including comb and cream) on pancakes and French toast. Unless the cakes are cold, I don't find the honey too thick at all, though it's loads thicker than maple syrup. Conclusion, in my mind, is that the thickness of the honey may not be the issue. The issue may just be better marketing -- and brand-specific marketing -- on the part of the purveyors of flavored corn syrup. That said, putting some thinner honey syrup on the shelf may be the best way of tempting consumers back toward using the real thing. Greg ______________________________________________________________ Greg Hankins Seven Lakes Times, L.L.C. ghankins@ac.net P.O. Box 602 Voice: (910)673-0111 1008 Seven Lakes Drive Fax: (910)673-0210 Seven Lakes, NC 27376 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 06:45:05 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jean-Francois Lariviere Subject: Re: Eat (and drink) More Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/2/00 6:43:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, honeymountain@KILTY.DEMON.CO.UK writes: << >>What could you call pancake syrup made from watered down pasteurized and >>or preserved honey? > >"Honey flavored Syrup" >"All Natural Honey Flavored Syrup" >> HOW ABOUT CALLING IT "PANCAKE HONEY" ??? Jean-Francois Lariviere NY NY ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:50:10 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lackey, Raymond" Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey MIME-version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" George mentioned flavored creamed honeys. Three questions there: One: Where can recipes for flavored creamed honeys be found? Two: Assuming that they use a fruit concentrate, can you recommend sources? Three: In the US, doesn't the mixing of things with the honey require a "food processor's License" with all of the associated inspections and such? Raymond J. Lackey Sweet Pines Apiary Master Beekeeper - Eastern Apiculture Society (1995) President (again) - Long Island Beekeepers Association email home: lackeyray@tianca.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:44:06 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: ARNOLD JONES Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I do a similar fair festival sales thing not as large but what I enjoy. I have heard exactly the same comments the one that I love is the one where a man and his wife walk by (and this is often) she ask what is that dear. He answers "honey I think" then he looks straight at me and ask "it is honey isn't it" both educated and "well to do" sorts. scary arnold ===== ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:31:54 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: George Richtmeyer Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I make cream honey in five flavors,plain, strawberry,lemon,orange and maple I bottle it in 8oz. jars We get $4.00 per jar We use only 100% natural flavoring by Frontier and can be purchased in any Health-food store..George,s Apiary George Richtmeyer ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:21:13 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Re: Eat (and drink) More Honey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Greg Hankins wrote (in part): >Finally, I switched to pure maple syrup (the thinnest of all the above) >when I moved to New England. > >Now that I have my own bees, I use honey (including comb and cream) on >pancakes and French toast. Unless the cakes are cold, I don't find the >honey too thick at all, though it's loads thicker than maple syrup. > >Conclusion, in my mind, is that the thickness of the honey may not be the >issue. The issue may just be better marketing -- and brand-specific >marketing -- on the part of the purveyors of flavored corn syrup. I feel that better marketing is the secret. We have all heard the expression, "hot biscuits and honey." It makes one's mouth water. And, no, the thickness is not an issue. One can heat honey a little in a microwave oven before dribbling it onto pancakes. That's what I do! However, I have to admit that I use some real maple syrup on some pancakes and then honey on the next batch --- the best of both worlds! Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone) 967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX) Santa Barbara, CA 93106 [http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm] ******************************************************************** * * "To have one's opinions prefabricated can be a source of great * comfort and relief. It relieves one of the responsibility of * choice." * Murray Levin, 1971 * ******************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:36:51 -0000 Reply-To: Gavin Ramsay Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: GM crop - bee disease link etc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Fellow Bee-Listers Joe Rowland's comments on GM crops and beekeeping were given space here recently, with encouragement to editors of bee journals to take them up. So much heat and so little light on this topic! I wouldn't wish to argue with all of the points he raised …. but …. two of the main points, that Terramycin resistance in AFB could be due to GM crops and that a French study indicated problems for bees using GM pollen, need some comments. There are public sources of rather technical information on the Internet for those who wish to see it. In the States, the comprehensive APHIS database holds information on all experimental field releases (1) and all unrestricted commercial releases (2). Similar sites exist in several other countries, including here in the UK. It would seem that resistance to tetracyclines (therefore Terramycin) has not been used in crops for small-scale or commercial release. Resistance genes for neomycin-type antibiotics have been widely used in the past but are unlikely to appear in many new GM varieties. Different classes of antibiotics have different modes of action. The widely-used gene neomycin phosphotransferase II (nptII) will not give resistance to tetracyclines as far as I am aware. So, AFB is very unlikely to have picked up its resistance in the US or elsewhere from GM crops; it will either have picked it up from pre-existing tetracyline-resistant bugs (bacteria being naturally promiscuous when it comes to gene-swapping), or have created new resistance all on its own as a result of long-term use of the antibiotic in beehives. The second point was that referring to disorientation or a reduction in longevity of bees fed on GM pollen. No so. This refers to work conducted in France where they were attempting to transfer natural anti-insect genes from one plant to another. Worried that this could damage bees, they very wisely decided to test them against bees. The proteins made by the genes were undetectable in pollen from the GM plants, so they added pure protein to the diets of bee colonies - just in case future types of GM plant did produce significant quantities in pollen. Yes, when they artificially added the anti-insect proteins to bee diets they did find reduced longevity and behavioural changes - no big surprise there! Their conclusion was that such GMOs should not be used unless, as with their plants, it had been shown that the proteins were absent from pollen. Ever since, in beekeeping circles, this story has been presented as evidence that GM pollen is harmful to bees - it is not, and to me it shows that the right people were asking the right questions at the right time! You can read all of this (in French unfortunately) at their Web site (3). I don't suppose that helped much with the heat question (my flame shield is going up now!) but I hope it spread a little light. Gavin - hobby beekeeper and professional plant geneticist, eastern Scotland. 1) http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm (for experimental releases) 2) http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/biopetitions1.cfm (for unrestricted commercial release) 3) http://www.inra.fr/Internet/Directions/DIC/ACTUALITES/DOSSIERS/OGM/jouanin.h tm (anti-insect genes and pollen) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:37:58 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Alan Riach Subject: AFB Control via destruction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Although the control of disease by destruction is fairly drastic, (the UK also controls Foot and Mouth disease in cattle by destruction), the economics can only be judged on a long term cost per colony basis. I do not know of any of my bee keeping aqaintances using chemicals to address AFB. Does the cost of AFB chemicals in the USA amount to more per colony than the cost of destruction would be per colony (over a long period of time). Costs would of course have to be averaged over the total number of USA colonies. Of course if the USA was to adopt destruction as policy there would be a high short term cost. Disease control by colony destruction has certain advantages since it will destroy "disease susceptable genes" as well as the disease itself. Alan Riach Edinburgh, Scotland ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 06:52:12 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Curtis Crowell Subject: Residue From Feeding Syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have a few hives that were nucs now in double brood boxes that were slow to build up reserves this summer and fall. I have been giving them syrup (cane sugar and water 1:1 by volume). I have noticed an accumulation of "grit" on the tops of the frames in these hives. The grit is whitish, and hard, and appears almost like the salt on a pretzel. I was out in the field yesterday and I'm sorry I neglected to taste it, but I suspect it is dried sugar left from the bees as they inevitably get some of the syrup on their legs and track it through the hive. Anyone else have this? /Curtis Crowell Hightstown, NJ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:43:52 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Murray McGregor Subject: Re: AFB Control via destruction In-Reply-To: <200011050448.XAA14706@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In article <200011050448.XAA14706@listserv.albany.edu>, Alan Riach writes >Disease control by colony destruction has certain advantages since it >will destroy "disease susceptable genes" as well as the disease itself. We in Scotland are very fortunate to have a very low indeed incidence of AFB, and a low rate of EFB. I have always been under the impression that AFB and EFB are present at low, usually non symptomatic, levels in all, or nearly all, of our colonies. We have never had a single case of AFB in 50 years in bees, totalling some 30,000 plus hive/seasons. This is without burning, AND with the importation of stock from countries where AFB is a persistent and serious problem, so we must have, at some stage, imported some supposedly genetically susceptible stock. An old bee inspector and national authority who was involved in several destruction episodes (actually he recorded several dozen over the years) kept records going back to before the last war, up to the mid 80's. He told me that the incidence of AFB in Scotland was little different in his latter years than in his early years, and in the records of his predecessor. This is despite there being considerable experimentation undertaken in the field in the 60's and 70's from an inspector based in Aberdeen with treatment rather than destruction. There appeared to be not much to choose between the two strategies in terms of re-appearance of the problem. As the incidence of this is rare in Scotland we may actually have several linked phenomena at work here, although I reckon environmental factors , linked to SOME genetic predisposition to resistance, are the main factors at play here. The old expert I was referring to kept a map of the whole area (about 4000 square miles) on his office wall, and there were coloured pins in it for every recorded AFB outbreak over the last 70 or so years. It was particularly noticeable that it occurred in pockets, with large tracts of the area with no recorded outbreaks ever, and others with 10 or more over the period. One small area in particular, about 5 miles long in a river valley had nearly 20 incidents in 70 years. I have heard in the last year of yet another outbreak affecting this place. Certainly, if genetics were the sole factor, as a result of a destruction policy, we could (should?) have encountered AFB in our imported stock. Yet we have not. We are not *especially* careful about hygeine, move boxes incessantly from hive to hive, and mix colonies from different apiaries. We have bought bees from people who have relatively recently (in the previous 5 years) suffered from AFB somewhere in their unit. EFB is certainly different, and you can cause the stress that triggers the appearance of symptoms by careless management. Having done this, and learned from the experience, we treat our bees reasonably well and have not seen any EFB like symptoms for several years (and never destroyed a single colony). I am quite certain EFB at least is endemic and will only rear its head when conditions favour it, subsiding again when the stress is removed although some treatment may be needed to help it along. Thus I seriously doubt if destruction for EFB has anything other than a superficial argument for it, as it will not tackle in any way the underlying presence of the problem. AFB? Well, I do not really know. If I found one I would burn it (out of fear of the problem), but in the light of the experiences of others I am not sure if that is strictly necessary, or even if it is an effective strategy. We have low AFB and we have a burning strategy so for the time being I will go along with it, even if the reasons for the low AFB may be coincidental. -- Murray McGregor ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 07:12:52 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: AFB Control via destruction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have been a proponent of destruction, even though the first hives I bought when I started beekeeping had AFB and I destroyed them. Years later, another beekeeper in the area also had AFB and treated and did not burn his hives. After a few years, he was lax in his treatment. He also helped another beekeeper who was a commercial pollinator by lending him hives. You know the rest. The commercial pollinator destroyed his own infected hives. All we do when we do not destroy the hives is keep a repository of spores in the frames and boxes. Since the spores are long lived and we are not, eventually they might end up with someone else. Which is exactly what happened to me. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:00:56 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Nick Wallingford Subject: Re: no yearly treatments for AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Members of the list might be interested to read Cliff Van Eaton's paper at http://www.beekeeping.co.nz/disease/beecult.htm that describes the New Zealand experience. Cliff presented this paper at the last Apimondia. I am not at all suggesting to any of you that it is the way to go for your situation, but I do have confidence that it is providing us with a cost effective and lower risk long term solution for dealing with AFB... Note also that NZ requires the destruction of the bees, combs and frames, but other parts from infected hives are salvagable by approved means (generally, paraffin wax dipping to specific times/temperatures). > You said you DO have a blanket destruction policy is UK for > AFB. Has it > eliminated it? How long have you had it? Can you point to > some place in the > world where it has been eliminated (most places I gather have blanket > destruction policies for AFB). ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:37:51 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Residue From Feeding Syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Probably sugar. However, you ALWAYS measure 1:1 or 2:1 sugar syrups by WEIGHT, not volume. 1 pound of sugar + 1 pound of water (1 pint of water) =1:1 2 pounds of sugar + 1 pound of water (1 pint of water = 2:1 Quite often directions say "by volume or weight" but that refers to the liquid, not the solid. It just happens that 1 point of water weighs 1 pound. Unless you are in the sunny south, this is November and you should be feeding 2:1 syrup now, because in cool weather, the bees can NOT evaporate the water out of 1:1 syrup to store it. 1:1 is artificial nectar and is only used in warm weather or to stimulate queen brood rearing I hope I have helped. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 15:21:09 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Residue From Feeding Syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > However, you ALWAYS measure 1:1 or 2:1 sugar syrups by > WEIGHT, not volume. > 1 pound of sugar + 1 pound of water (1 pint of water) =1:1 > 2 pounds of sugar + 1 pound of water (1 pint of water = 2:1 > > Quite often directions say "by volume or weight" but that refers to the > liquid, not the solid. It just happens that 1 point of water weighs 1 pound. Any volume of water and a similar volume of granulated sugar weigh almost the same amont (+/- 5%) So, -- unless you hapen to be an atomic scientist -- weight or volume measure is not all that important, since most of us won't be measuring that closely anyhow. Most of us just use a bucket or whatever is handy and 'eyeball' the quantities. Besides, the limiting factor is how long you are willing to stir and how much heat you have available, since hand mixing often will not get to 67% sugar (2:1) anyhow. We'd specify 80% for fall instead of 67% if it were at all easy to make. We use 67% because it is the strongest that is easy to make and will not precipitate out too badly. Even 67% syrup will precipitate out an inch or two in the bottom of a drum in cool weather. > Unless you are in the sunny south, this is November and you should be feeding 2:1... Agreed allen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:49:26 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Residue From Feeding Syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen, I never know when someone is kidding me, because I do not do kidding myself. I AM a retired atomic physicist of the Manhattan project to build our first atomic bombs. So many beeHAVERS ask over and over again: "Do you measure by volume or weight?" I hope you get to ABF in San Diego, so we can chat. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:48:15 -0600 Reply-To: dehenry@mb.sympatico.ca Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Doug Henry Subject: Re: Residue From Feeding Syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Too late to feed now, l'hiver est arrivé. Doug Henry > > Unless you are in the sunny south, this is November and you should be > feeding 2:1... > > Agreed > > allen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:04:58 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Medhat Nasr Organization: University of Guelph Subject: Re: AFB Control via destruction Comments: To: Bill Truesdell In-Reply-To: <200011051633.LAA01625@ccshst09.cs.uoguelph.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi all, Over the past few days, There has been a discussion about the AFB and destruction of colonies as effective means to control the AFB. I think that time has come to take a hard look at the AFB and antibiotics use. In some areas in north America, beekeepers are facing a major problem with the AFB-resistance to terramycin. This is not a new case to microbiologists, doctors dealing with animals and human. OUR PRACTICES OF USING THE MIRACLE DRUGS ARE DESTROYING THE MIRACLE. The effectiveness of the antibiotics is so high which means the selection pressure on the bugs (bacteria) is also high. Therefore, new forms of the bacteria which are resistant to toxic antibiotics, develop in a short time. As beekeepers, we are lucky to use Terramycin for that long. History taught us eradication of a bug is not an easy task. It is also too expensive and risky. However, a long term sustainable management program is much better. I think that Mark Goodwin and Cliff Van Eaton's book " Elimination of American Foulbrood without the use of drugs gives us a different approach to manage AFB in bee colonies. To be fair, beekeepers who intend to apply this program, should apply the whole system in a region at the same time to get the expected benefits. Remember, In recent days the FDA has banned 2 antibiotics used in the poultry industry, who is going to be next? Medhat Nasr http://www.beekeeping.co.nz/disease/beecult.htm describes the New Zealand experience. Medhat Nasr, Ph.D. Research Scientist, Ontario Beekeepers' Association Dept. Environmental Biology University of Guelph Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 e-mail: mnasr@evbhort.uoguelpg.ca Tel: (519) 824-4120 Ext: 6243 Fax: (519) 837-0442 Home: 519-837-9882 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:42:31 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Nick Wallingford Subject: Re: Residue From Feeding Syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I agree with Allen that it really does matter much to bees whether it is by weight or volume... I've mixed many 44 gallon drums of syrup by filling to the first 1/3 reinforcing ridge with cold water, then dumping in enough sugar to fill to just about the second ridge (ie, 1:1 by volume), then stirring over a period of time until it all dissolves. And if it doesn't, throw in another bucket of water! For the calculationally inclined, you can play with a Javascript calculator at http://www.beekeeping.co.nz/info/convert.htm#sugarmix2 to see the different effects... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:04:47 -0700 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: Eat (and drink) More Honey In-Reply-To: <200011031206.HAA17976@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Allen Dick wrote: > Of course if we use a preservative, then it has to be a syrup, not honey -- > unfortunately. We cannot call anything but honey, "honey". We would not want > to. That would open the floodgates. Perhaps in the line of honesty and clarity we could call it : "Beehive Golden Honey Syrup" Best regards, Donald Aitken Edmonton Alberta Canada ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:44:10 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: huestis Subject: flavored cream honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I would like to add flavored cream honey to my honey products. Can = someone tell me some recipes for flavored creamed honey? Flavors such = as lemon, orange, cinnamon, strawberry, raspberry, ect. No maple please = let the maple producers sell that. How would you label the products? = Thanks in advance. Clayton Huestis ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:36:34 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: smitch Subject: Re: eat(and drink)more honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This thread has me interested in the syrups and creamed honeys. Will someone direct me in a good direction for receipies. Thanks Scott Mitchell smitch@cavtel.net ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:51:45 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Midnitebee Subject: George's Pink Pages MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings! The Nov.2000 issue of the Pink Pages are now viewable. http://www.cybertours.com/~midnitebee/contentpages/articles.html Herb/Norma Bee Holly-B Apiary PO Box 26 Wells,Maine 04090-0026 "an educated consumer is YOUR best customer" The Beekeeper's Home on the Internet http://www.mainebee.com Stony Critters http://www.stonycritters.com =20 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:18:34 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: U.S. Honey loan Hello all, My local U.S.D.A. office says they haven't recieved information on the "new" 2000 honey loan yet. Has other U.S. bee-l beekeepers had a similar response? I thank the bee-l moderators for posting my information request and you can respond by direct email. Thanks in advance. Bob Harrison busybeeacres@discoverynet.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:58:01 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Residue From Feeding Syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 3 gallons of water 50lbs of sugar for winter 6 gallons of water 50lbs of sugar for spring ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:14:37 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: Beekeeping software Hello all, I am looking for a email or snail mail address for a company selling a complete beekeeping business software program. I remember a program CD offered in the bee magazines a few years ago. Reply to me by direct email please. Thanks in advance! Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:49:57 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: Sampling honey for AFB MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Robert Mann wrote: > > While we're on AFB spores, could anyone state proof they're not > significantly spread in foundation? While not exactly proof, it is interesting to note that the "old time" beekeepers from South Africa had always relied on foundation imported from the USA (beautifully packed with thin layers of paper in between each sheet). A law was passed in the mid 1900's banning the importation of wax, honey and used beekeeping equipment into South Africa. That has recently been changed to allow wax for pharmaceutical purposes only and honey and only if radurised. AFB has to date never been found inside Southern Africa. Sincerely Robert Post ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:20:11 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Residue from feeding syrup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter. I just checked. Of course UK pints are 20 fluid ounces where I assume US are 16. The difference in weights and measures between countries divided by a common language may account for some recipes not working out well. Chris Slade ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 03:38:29 +0100 Reply-To: Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jorn Johanesson Subject: SV: Residue from feeding syrup In-Reply-To: <20001107005537.PTVX29032.fepE.post.tele.dk@SEGATE.SUNET.SE> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sendt: 7. november 2000 01:20 > Til: BEE-L@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU > Emne: Re: Residue from feeding syrup > weights and measures between countries divided by a common language may > account for some recipes not working out well. So if we talk sugar and water then just make it simple. one bucket of water one bucket of grain sugar is very close the same weight. the weight of one bucket of water is a little more than the bucket of sugar, but not much. Best regards Jorn Johanesson Multilingual software for beekeeping since 1997 hive note- queen breeding and handheld computer beekeeping software full revised and bug tested 20-09-2000 home page = HTTP://apimo.dk e-mail Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:47:31 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: Re: Sampling honey for AFB In-Reply-To: <200011070052.TAA05555@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Robert Post wrote: >While not exactly proof, it is interesting to note that the "old time" >beekeepers from South Africa had always relied on foundation imported from the >USA (beautifully packed with thin layers of paper in between each sheet). >A law >was passed in the mid 1900's banning the importation of wax, honey and used >beekeeping equipment into South Africa. This may have been nothing more definite or postively-based than an early application of the precautionary principle. It may even have been protection for an infant S. African industry making bee gear including foundation. Or it may conceivably have been a political reprisal of some sort. The facts given are some way from evidence regarding whether viable AFB spores can be spread in foundation. I remain astonished that this question of fact is so hard to get answered. >That has recently been changed to allow >wax for pharmaceutical purposes only and honey and only if radurised. This may very well be a minor triumph for that ultimate 'technology looking for an application', million-rad doses from cobalt-60. Other PR euphemisms for this irradiation include 'radappetisation'. It is just the nuclear industry trying to improve its image by making out that an intractable radioactive byproduct is useful. Beekeepers should be wary of being used for this PR purpose. R - Robt Mann consultant ecologist P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:58:18 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: steven.turner@ZBEE.COM Organization: ZbeeNet computer networking for beekeepers Subject: The 70th National Honey Show News 70th National Honey Show News At the URL: http://www.honeyshow.co.uk/70thnhsnews.htm The National Honey Show 16th,17th & 18th November 2000 at Kensington Town Hall, London. UK. Full programme at the URL: http://www.honeyshow.co.uk/2000intro.shtml Main Site URL: http://www.honeyshow.co.uk BeeData URL: http://www.beedata.com Regards Steve in London .. When you go in search of honey you must expect to be stung by bees. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:26:12 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: Whitewashed and returned... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/1/00 2:39:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, kim@AIROOT.COM writes: > An interesting thought on this clay application...it is similar in particle > size to talcum powder, and some pollens. Will it be easily removed by bees > and returned to the hive? Bees collect substances that are similar in size > to pollen that are not pollen...every experienced beekeeper has observed > this behavior in sawdust piles and bird feeders. Food for thought, and maybe > for larvae honey bees? In response to my inquiries I got the following response showing that the issue has been considered and tested, which is reassuring.... From: JOHN_MOSKO@ENGELHARD.COM Dear Dave, Thanks for the question. We have studied particle film effects on bees and the results were very positive. Here's what we know: Tests done that followed the EPA protocol showed no adult bee mortality when applied directly to the adult bees nor when fed to adult bees. In a pear and apple orchard study, particle films did not deter bee foraging and pollination when applied during bloom. With all of the 60,000 or so acre treatments we have done in 2000, we have heard of no instances of detrimental effects to hives where bees were foraging in particle film-treated crops. A key point is that Surround Crop Protectant is rarely applied during bloom periods. If it were applied during bloom, it would only be applied weekly, so only a certain percentage of blooms would be open for a given spray. On top of that, the film would have to directly hit and presumably cover the flower; and then the adult would have to carry it back to the hive. (Since the bees forage directly in the flower, prebloom coatings that remain on leaves or branches would not affect them.) Thanks, John Mosko Surround Crop Protectant