From MAILER-DAEMON@trance.metalab.unc.edu Sun Jun 17 09:21:55 2001 Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by trance.metalab.unc.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f5HDLtn11194 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:21:55 -0400 Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by listserv.albany.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f5HDJYP04152 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:19:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200106171319.f5HDJYP04152@listserv.albany.edu> Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:19:33 -0400 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8d)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0106C" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Content-Length: 63661 Lines: 1341 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:09:11 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: Do we need Standards For Woodenware? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The ongoing thread about bee space can be placed into perspective reading a few articles published by "Bee Culture". (http://bee.airoot.com/beeculture/) In 1995, they ran an article named "Bee Space? Or Space For Bees?", showing that "comb spacing" (and hence, the definition of the ranges of acceptable "bee space") is in need of massive clarification. Sadly, it was apparently ignored. This year, they ran an article named "Woodenware II", a review of all available "store bought" woodenware, where bee space compatibility was checked between all current vendors of supers, hive bodies, and frames. The results showed that most equipment is incompatible, and some is incompatible with everything, including more of itself. If even the people who make woodenware for a living can't "get it right", one must conclude that we have divergent points of view, all with some claim on being "right". The way such issues are settled in engineering is to negotiate a standard, and encourage vendors to comply with the standard. The "encouragement" most often takes the form of a logo that the vendors can use to show that their products comply with standards, and are hence, "compatible" and "standards compliant". You may think that this sort of effort would be a silly waste of time, but think for a moment about all the complex hardware and software that allows you to read this message. If every bit of it was not "standards compliant", you would not have Bee-L to read, and the internet simply would not exist. (Check out the acronyms ASTM, EIA, IEEE, and RFC on a search engine to see just how many standards there are for everything from nuts and bolts to encrypted data streams.) So, who wants to participate in drafting a proposed set of standards? Anyone? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:27:38 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Do we need Standards For Woodenware? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > So, who wants to participate in drafting a proposed set of standards? Anyone? Count me out. Standards are all fine and good, but only work when they're followed. Draft the standards, attempt to get all the wooden ware producers to adopt them and follow them. I'll be happy when you defeat that windmill. In the meantime I'll deal with the problem which is going to be around in the form of USED EQUIPMENT long after the standards have been drafted and adopted by every manufacturer everywhere. Aaron Morris - wondering if the standards will be metric or english measurements! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:21:58 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Problems introducing the queen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Lance Parr wrote of his problems getting a queen introduced to a new package. Bob Harrison correctly pointed out that the queen must have started laying at least a few eggs from which, as Lance stated, the bees started supersedure cells. Subsequent attempts at introducing a queen to the package also failed. The thing I wanted to add here is that occasionally one will encounter bees who simply will not accept a queen. Why I cannot say. Fortunately it is rare, but it does happen. And the only thing to do in that case it to let the bees raise their own. The hard part is deciding when it's time to give up introduction attempts and leave the bees alone. One should certainly cut their losses before the hive becomes a drone layer. An established hive (one with all stages of developing brood) allows more time to continue attemps. The pheremones from the developing brood help supress the egg laying capabilities of workers. A package is a different story. Since there is no brood, two attempts at queen introduction is about the best one should go for, and immediately after the first failure a frame of developing brood with eggs should be given to the package. The package will start raising queens on that frame, but that will keep them at ease until then beekeeper can attempt the second introduction. When the second queen arrives, any cells that have been started should be removed prior to the second attempt. Lance's Russian queen may have had a better fate. But if the second attempt also fails, especially with a package, the best plan may be another frame with eggs and leave the bees on their own to raise their queen. The resulting queen may not be of the best quality (a package may not nouish a developing queen as well as one would like), but a colony with an inferior queen is better than a colony that will only produce drones. Aaron Morris - thinking there's more than one way to corronate a package! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:19:40 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Blane White Subject: Re: Don't buy and queens... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Everyone, Just a couple of comments. Bob commented about the issue of open mated production queens resulting in a lower level of hygenic behavior or SMR trait. In both cases researchers have done tests and have shown that the selected X nonselected cross shows intermediate levels of the selected trait i.e. not as good as the selected parent but considerably better than nonselected stock. Both were shown by this testing to have much better disease ( hygenic ) or mite ( SMR ) resistance than the nonselected stock they were crossed with. Bottom line: even if you don't control the mating you will get some improvement in the first year. Now what about the second year or third? Let me give an example that I have seen here in MN. I know a beekeeper who has gotten hygenic breeders from Dr Spivak for several years. He saw an improvement the first year but has seen much greater disease resistance after two or three years of purchasing hygenic breeders. Why? Simply a case of having more drones available in the mating yard that also carry the selected trait. So if you want to get the full benefit of these traits plan on purchasing selected breeder queens for at least 3 years or longer so most of your drones are also carrying the desired traits. You should see improvement in your stock during that time in the selected traits. Of course you also need to continue to select for other important traits but most of the breeders are also selecting for these. One last comment. In some cases the first generation cross will give better overall preformance due to hybrid vigor. My understanding of Dr Harbo's stock is that it is a somewhat inbred line selected to be crossed with beekeepers stock to bring the SMR trait into their stock. As such it could well result in the first generation showing hybrid vigor which may result in greater honey production etc. Be aware that this might not be as true of the second generation crosses ( selecting breeders from your own stock to cross with your own drones ). That said it is not a bad thing at all just something to be aware of so you aren't upset that the bees seem to loose some of their vigor upon supersedure etc. Remember what happened with starlines and what happens with buckfasts upon supersedure. A similar effect could occur with these bees. Purchasing a new selected breeder every year may help reduce this effect. FWIW So far I am pleased with the harbo queens but it is far too early to make any statement about how resistant they are. blane ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture blane.white@state.mn.us ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:27:53 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Don't buy and queens... In-Reply-To: <200106141024.f5EAOOP10151@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I get queens from two sources. A major supplier in Hawaii and my > neighbours who raise cells. My neighbours are doing careful hygienic tests > on their breeding stock and are happy to discuss the results of their > testing. I don't know about the Hawaiians. I wrote my supplier there a > week or so ago... I received an answer yesterday and will quote from it here, inasmuch as I don't believe I am betraying any trust or revealing any confidences in doing so. I agree that we will not be doing ourselves any favours by saying nasty things about breeders or casting them in a bad light if they do not agree with us. We need to work together, and politeness and mutual respect is essential to doing good business. For the record: the supplier quoted here is my current supplier of first choice these days. His carniolan queens excel in wintering as well as honey production. I am hoping that the hygienic factor is increasing over time, since he says they are measuring it -- even if it does not appear to be the first consideration in their selection. (perhaps it should not be since, as he points out, the whole object of keeping bees is to make honey). Here is the quote: "The first hygienic testing I did was back in the 80's with Taber's method of frozen brood. We did that for several years back then. I started the testing again with the more recent publicity. We have seen chalk brood reduced to almost nothing, where it had been severe on occasion. We also have done years of testing for tracheal mite resistance with Medhat Nasar and now Robert Danka(USDA). Both of these areas have shown positive signs, but I do not think breeding will be the total answer. If it were, then AFB would not be a problem now, as so much breeding has focused on it for the last 40 years. It seems that most anything can be selected for these days, if we all remember to retain the "ol honey making" traits and genetic diversity. I am very happy with the T-mite progress we have made by testing breeder brood in mainland labs and selecting the best. Establish a breeder pool with those and then cross the lot with AI. The daughters of these queens tested very well, so now we are re-queening our drone mothers with these and selecting new ones for queen mothers next year. The progress that can be made with AI is amazing." I should mention here that I am much less happy with the Australian supplier I was extolling several years back, since the chalkbrood in the hives from his last batch of packages is as high as 30%. I gather he has not been using hygienic tests. That is not to slag all Aussie bees, since some of the best I have ever had came from there. Is the hygienic test catching on down under? Anyone? allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ Adventures in commercial hobby beekeeping ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:43:18 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Bees from South Texas MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello John/All, > Bob/All: > I guess we finally agree on something - if the colony stings or runs too > much, it needs work. > - Thanks, > John Edwards, USDA-ARS BeeLab, Tucson, Arizona I am going to use this post to say something I have been wanting to post all through this discussion. I have got a close friend which is a commercial beekeeper in Nebraska. His father before. We have had long talks while crossing country bouncing around in bee trucks about Africanized bees. I always like the straight forward approach of the beekeeper . I want to post his viewpoint and a comments of my own supporting his viewpoint below his. His point of view:. What's all the fuss about? If they are not the kind of bees you want requeen. No such thing as AHB. Scientists separated those races and now can't tell them apart! I am curious what John replies back when the commercial beekeeper says the above? We have spent a huge amount of bee research money to determine some bees can be *very aggressive* AND some not. Is not this what John is agreeing with? <"no such thing as AHB"> Best example: 'Chads in election in Florida" Can our experts agree on what is and what isn't with certainty and what has the tests to do with aggression and running on the comb? Isn't this exactly the problem. A. mellifera S. has a distinct color pattern. What the USDA calls AHB does not carry the scutellata pattern from what I have been able to find out. Would you call a black bee Italian? Scutellata is the only African bee with serious problems *in my opinion*. After looking at AHb deeply and trying to read everything I could and now back to the start I have a hard time presenting researchers point of view to beekeepers. Maybe John Edwards will give his input. My Nebraska friend is a excellent beekeeper and reads Bee-L but is a lurker. I dedicate this post on AHB to my Nebraska friend Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:08:13 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Do we need Standards For Woodenware? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Aaron Morris said: >> So, who wants to participate in drafting a proposed set of standards? >> Anyone? > Count me out. Standards are all fine and good, but only work when > they're followed. While the participation of every beekeeper is not required, how can anyone "follow" something that does not exist? Clearly, some group must create something worth following. One must start somewhere, sometime. The incentive to follow the standard would be clear - vendors that did so would be allowed to firmly state that their equipment was "Standard", and hence interoperable with other equipment. Beekeepers would have a choice, and would vote with their wallets. Since incompatible equipment is clearly a problem, vendors complying with standards would sell more gear than vendors who did not. Non-standard gear would simply be worth much less on the open market than standard gear. > Draft the standards, attempt to get all the wooden ware producers to adopt > them and follow them. The trick is to include the producers in the negotiation and drafting of the standards, just as has been done with every other technical standard ever written. The process does not happen in either an ivory tower or a vacuum. It works best when the craftsmen who make the products with their own hands can discuss practical issues with the people who use the products. In this case, it means getting sawdust on one's shoes. I think that the Bee Culture article alone should have been enough to act as a "wake up call" to the makers of woodenware. I would think that they would jump at the chance to eliminate the confusion, so that each vendor could avoid being viewed as "wrong" by some fraction of their potential customers. > I'll be happy when you defeat that windmill. So while you will be "happy" to see the effort completed, you cannot even summon up a kind word for the effort? This seems contradictory. If such standards had been adopted years ago, you would not have the problem, would you? How can one agree that there is a "problem", but dismiss any attempt to solve the problem as "tilting at windmills"? A pessimist says that the glass is half empty. An optimist says that the glass is half full. A defeatist says that the glass will be spilled. A cynic says that it matters not - the milk is sour anyway. An engineer says that the glass is twice as big as required for the job. One gets to chose one's approach, and hence, one's future. > In the meantime I'll deal with the problem which is going to be around in > the form of USED EQUIPMENT long after the standards have been drafted > and adopted by every manufacturer everywhere. One must start somewhere, sometime. Yes, it is a shame that the vendors of woodenware must be prodded to do the obvious, and it is also a shame that this was not done decades ago, but these are not reasons to endure, ignore, or perpetuate the problems. > Aaron Morris - wondering if the standards will be metric or english > measurements! An entertaining little straw-man argument, but it should be obvious to even the casual observer that there is little or no need for "planet-wide standards". There is very little potential for the movement of hives between New Zealand and the USA, for example. Anyway, New Zealand seems to be one of the few places on the planet where rational, non-fuzzy thinking about this issue has been done! They seem to have a workable start at a standard for those locales where lumber is milled to metric dimensions. Woodenware is not the sort of item that is often shipped from one end of the planet to the other, since the shipping tends to cost more than the product. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:55:56 +0100 Reply-To: Dave Cushman Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Do we need Standards For Woodenware? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All I am surprised that there is no "standard" for woodware in USA. In UK we have had standards for 120 years... Sadly there are few that adhere to them. But apart from "standards" (or lack of them) there seems to be a decline in "quality" over recent years. I am referring to the seasoning of timber, its accuracy and repeatability of cutting, and the smoothness of machining. Well made joints enhance the resale value, but many hives I have seen in photographs recently have gaps and mismatches of as much as 1.5 mm (1/16"). The production tolerances in my manufacturing system was plus or minus 0.1 mm (0.004") which was not difficult to maintain. I would have expected the modern robotic machines to equal or better that. Regards From:- Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping and Bee Breeding, http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman IBList Archives, http://website.lineone.net/~d.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:34:39 +0100 Reply-To: Dave Cushman Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Bees from South Texas MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All > The measurements are easy to do if you use the scales published by the BIBBA > (the Bee Improvement and Bee Breeders Association). Slightly less easy but > not difficult is to mount a series of wings on a glass slide using double > sided sticky tape and projecting onto a wall. For those that want to do the morphometry for themselves, there is some information that starts from:- http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman/morphometry.html There are instructions on how to do the various tests and there are Herold fans and discoidal card that can be printed. Wing mounting is also covered. There is one important point that I have yet to add to my pages. The projector must be totally perpendicular to the wall in both the horizontal and vertical plane or the resulting data will be corrupted. I would be interested in any well defined characters of AHB or AM Scutellata that I can add to my database. Regards From:- Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping and Bee Breeding, http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman IBList Archives, http://website.lineone.net/~d.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:42:50 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Digger Subject: Re: Do we need Standards For Woodenware? In-Reply-To: <200106151614.f5FGEhP29502@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- James Fischer wrote: > Aaron Morris said: > > >> So, who wants to participate in drafting a > proposed set of standards? > >> Anyone? > > > Count me out. Standards are all fine and good, > but only work when > > they're followed. > > While the participation of every beekeeper is not > required, > how can anyone "follow" something that does not > exist? > Clearly, some group must create something worth > following. > One must start somewhere, sometime. There is a generic quality standard that could be used to establish processes and procedures for beekeeping generally, and to establish standards for suppliers. I am thinking of ISO 9000, a widely used quality system. The power of any standard lies in the number of folks choosing to comply. With sufficient numbers and a "value-added" system, suppliers would find that they had to comply to acquire and keep customers. Such a quality system could also be used to assure consumers that the bee products they buy meet a standard of purity. This would address more than woodwork, of course. Richard __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:13:04 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: MCARTER@EVB.UOGUELPH.CA Organization: University of Guelph Subject: Re: National Organic Standards In-Reply-To: <200012211813.NAA15445@ccshst09.cs.uoguelph.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Here is another example. I wonder if the address for Medhat Nasr is correct. On 21 Dec 00, at 12:09, Mark Coldrion wrote: For those of you who want to read the National Organic Standard posted in today's Federal Register, but don't know where to find it, go to the following address: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html Then go to the search section midway down the page and search for 12/21/2000 with a maximum records return of 200. After the page comes up, search that page for the word organic. You should find three items. If you need more help, just email me. Mark (The Little/Coldiron Farm) If what you're doing seems too hard..., You're probably doing it wrong. :-) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:20:26 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Bees from South Texas MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Cushman wrote: > I would be interested in any well defined characters of AHB or AM Scutellata > that I can add to my database. Wow, Dave - tremendous page !! Do you have a copy of Daly and Balling's original (1978) paper which lists the characters they used?? If not, I might be able to find mine and send you a copy or scan. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:08:02 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Bees from South Texas MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob & Liz wrote: > What's all the fuss about? If they are not the kind of bees you want (then) > requeen. I agree > No such thing as AHB. Scientists separated those races and now can't tell > them apart! Sorry, Bob, anecdote and rumor > > I am curious what John replies back when the commercial beekeeper says the > above? I would say that I have great respect for commercial beekeepers, having known them since I was born and worked with them cooperatively since 1964. Miles Wedgeworth, the Bensons, Jim Smith, Joe Moffett, and Lenard Hines have been some of my teachers. By the way, where are you, Joe?? Why not get online in these groups - I know you are out there. > > Isn't this exactly the problem. A. mellifera S. has a distinct color > pattern. What the USDA calls AHB does not carry the scutellata pattern from > what I have been able to find out. Would you call a black bee Italian? I have seen workers here try to separate bees by color - although very visible and seemingly simple, it does not seem to be a reliable method. > Scutellata is the only African bee with serious problems *in my opinion*. Probably because the others have not been put in the unique situation that developed in Brazil. Who knows what other interactions could develop. Ask the Aussies about cane toads. > After looking at AHb deeply and trying to read everything I could and now > back to the start I have a hard time presenting researchers point of view to > beekeepers. Maybe John Edwards will give his input. As they say, "I'm not a cowboy, I just found the hat". Have you noticed the lack of govt. Ph.D.s in these discussion groups? I am a meager research technician with a degree in Entomology from the Univ. of Arizona, not a research scientist. During my posts, I have tried to set the record straight on some issues in which I have a little experience and training. I have always considered research issues with a grain of salt, having grown up with a cotton farmer (and Texan) father who was not impressed with the efficiency of the govt. It really disturbs me to be the only person on one side of the fence in some of these discussions on the bee lists. > My Nebraska friend is a > excellent beekeeper and reads Bee-L but is a lurker. Maybe the lurkers, many of whom are very experienced beekeepers, can start posting. It would help us all to get as many points of view as possible. > I dedicate this post on > AHB to my Nebraska friend > Sincerely, > Bob Harrison > Odessa, Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------- John F. Edwards Biological Lab. Technician Carl Hayden Bee Research Center Agricultural Research Service - USDA Tucson, Arizona 85719 http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/home/edwards/edwards.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:03:54 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Do we need Standards For Woodenware? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I appreciate standards and think we have them already but within some specific companies and even between some companies. But as soon as you set up official standards between companies, you increase the cost appreciably. Especially with all the variables that are associated with wood. Go to any lumberyard and you will find dimensional differences even is the same lots. I have boxes built from lumber from different yards that have different internal dimensions because of the planing and sanding differences between yards. If we built all our hives of a better dimensionally stable material, then standards would work, but even then, would cost because of the better material, closer tolerance machines and quality control to the standard. Who sets the standard? I have always been of the opinion that when two beekeepers meet to talk you have at least three opinions on proper beekeeping. And who enforces the standard? Please do not say the government. Finally, we are not talking precision machining but building wooden boxes and frames. And we want them cheap and close enough to swap with occasional burr comb. Which is exactly what we are getting. I, for one, have no problem with any of the equipment I have bought from Kelly and Dadant. And do not want to pay a lot more for marginal, if any, improvement. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:37:38 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Don't buy and queens... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Allen & All, That's the type of answer Lance should have received from his breeder. The only comment I can make is the girls Marla Spivak & Sue Cobey are going to jump all over Pat for using the letters AI instead of II. As they told me years ago. Artificial insemination is for cattle. Instrumental insemination is for bees. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:29:10 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Bees from South Texas MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CSlade777@AOL.COM wrote: > If you are computerised you can put the slide onto a scanner and enlarge the > wings on screen or print out. Somebody is working on a computer program to do > the calculations automatically. You can download existing software from > BIBBA. > > This method is used to recognise ligustica and distinguish it from carnica or > mellifera and to detect hybrids. I hate to be a "spoil-sport" about this, but several people are describing the European-developed morphometrics methods, using a few of the 25-characters in USDAID. The Baton Rouge BeeLab and a contractor spent probably 10 years refining Howell Daly's method for dealing with the specific problem of separating AHB and EHB, using thousands of 10-bee samples. If you will seek out and read the publications on this computer-aided method, you will begin to appreciate the statistical weightings given to the various characters, leading to the eventual separation of the two groups. I am aware that Dr. Ruttner and others have, in the past, measured bees using up to 50 characters, but many of these characters were not significant in helping separate the target bee lines. The USDAID program was originally only available to regulatory and identification organizations, but I don't know why Baton Rouge would not give copies to the public. The equipment might be a problem, as the microprojector used cost (in 1988) $400., digitizing easel is about $400., and the two flat-field Zeiss Planar lenses cost a total of $1500. Scans and screen measurements were considered, but are just not accurate or precise enough. After calibrating, the data is input with a digitizing puck, and the program encodes the data in a form which cannot be changed. I am not trying to be argumentative, but it seems that most people are not aware of the years of work and expertise which Professor Daly of UC-Berkeley and the Baton Rouge USDA lab put into the development of this program, choosing instead to rely on anecdote and rumor. These are honorable people, with no agendas other than accurate answers to a very complicated identification. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:14:45 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: Do we need Standards For Woodenware? Comments: To: jfischer@supercollider.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello James & All, > The incentive to follow the standard would be clear - vendors that did > so would be allowed to firmly state that their equipment was "Standard", > and hence interoperable with other equipment. Because each maker woodenware is not exactly alike how do you decide the standard ? The differences really don't have a big effect on beekeeping. The bees simply don't care. Many makers of woodenware are tooled up to the specs of the largest customer. Fact! Because these guys buy amounts of woodenware beyound our wildest dreams and they keep the price of woodenware down for the hobbiest. When they are gone buying beekeeping woodenware could get expensive. I believe Kim did the story in Bee Culture so if you have got a complaint about bee space in your equipment you can look through the article and find a maker which is closer to your specs. < Since incompatible equipment is clearly a problem > I don't see the woodenware sold today by all the makers as incompatible. Not all cut alike but certainly not *incompatible* from my viewpoint. The only adjustment I have had to make to some woodenware has been to change the shelf depth. Years ago woodenware was put out with a low shelf depth so a metal frame rest could be used. Walter Kelley was responsible. To be exact: The deep bodies were 9 9/16 deep and take the 9 1/8 frames. On Kelley boxes the top inside ends were rabbeted out 7/8" deep so they would take the metal frame rests *which prevent the top bars from being propolized down*. Many beekeepers removed these metal frame rests in later years. Then complained about burr comb. DUH! There are two possible solutions for these boxes which are plentiful today in all parts of the U.S. Use a wooden strip about the size of removable strip on a wedge top bar. Cut the top of the box down or use metal frame rests The wooden strip was my solution. Non-standard gear would simply be worth > much less on the open market than standard gear. Homemade non-standard gear is worth less. I have not seen any large amounts of beekeeping woodenware(used) sell for less because of the maker. I look out for those Kelley boxes because I know I will have to add a wooden strip if the metal frame rests are missing.but all else works great. James wrote > A pessimist says that the glass is half empty. > An optimist says that the glass is half full. Bob added: A pessimist is a disappointed optimist > One must start somewhere, sometime. Yes, it is a shame that the vendors > of woodenware must be prodded to do the obvious, and it is also a shame > that this was not done decades ago, but these are not reasons to endure, > ignore, or perpetuate the problems. Good luck with your cause James. I like Aaron will watch from the bleachers. Woodenware makers will be happy to oblige AS LONG AS THEY DON"T HAVE TO SPEND MONEY or lose a valuable customer which uses those specs for a reason. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:49:28 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Carol Malcolm Subject: Re: Removing attic colony Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Someone asked: >I'm looking for advice in successfully removing and relocating a colony >that is occupying space in the attic of a very old house. The owners called >me as they where aware of my apiary. My bee vacuum used in these situations is a small canister vacuum that is connected to a 5 gallon bucket. The bucket has the air intake from the vacuum and a large hose to suck up the bees. The bucket is padded with foam on the bottom. It also has a pressure valve (read standard faucet that can be set to full open or nearly closed) to dampen the suction from the vacuum. I vacuum all the bees in sight and hope that I don't kill the queen. Then I cut and remove the comb using a plaster scraper, rubber-band brood comb into frames and watch and remove the transferred comb as the hive becomes established. THe bucket of bees is not dumped into the hive until I get home. >Is a shop-vac a solution to this extraction? Can bees survive that sudden >stop at the end of the shop-vac ride? The valve dampens the effect of bees being sucked at high speed into a plastic bucket. Carol Carol K. Malcolm dewsnap@worldnet.att.net ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:27:49 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Carol Malcolm Subject: Re: Bees from South Texas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" All, As someone who loves the drive to Navasota I have to say that managed bees are managed for behavior as well. Weaver bees are used by many of us in Austin and we have never had behavior problems or AHB problems with package bees. Carol Malcolm Austin, TX USA >Hello Pasha & All, >> Does anyone have info on package bees from south texas? I mean behaviour >issue. >I have been waiting a long time for this post. I expected the post years >ago. I personally have heard of no behaviour problems with packages from >Weaver Apiaries in Texas and many of those are sent into our area. South Carol K. Malcolm dewsnap@worldnet.att.net ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:27:28 -0400 Reply-To: Honeybees@inorbit.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Garry Libby Subject: Re: easy honey vinegar In-Reply-To: <200106110232.f5B2W5P10985@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Layne and All, The word vinegar means "sour wine". Aceter bacteria convert alcohol to acid. You can make mead without a lot of expensive equipment, a gallon jug and a one dollar fermentation lock with cork is all that You really need. It will be much simpler and more predictable to ferment the honey before adding vinegar "mother". Good luck, Garry Libby Attleboro, Massachusetts, USA 41.56 N 71.17 W LibBEE@email.msn.com The better tasting the wine is the better the vinegar will be. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:50:41 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: Bees and pets MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/14/01 11:48:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jstein@WORLDNET.ATT.NET writes: << Do you have a URL for the Picture of the dog? >> http://pollinator.com/gallery/beekeepersdog.htm Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:14:58 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Stephen Augustine Subject: Excluding the Queen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, I am fairly new to beekeeping and fairly new to this list. To that extent I'm guessing that some of the questions I will pose have been discussed numerous times on this list before but I will ask anyway (I did search the archives though). My questions have to do with investigating alternative methods for keeping the queen down in the brood boxes without using excluders. I am currently using metal excluders and in my somewhat careful observation it appears that the workers have to fairly squeeze themselves through to pass the excluder. In fact it appears that some workers might even be unable to get through because of individual variation in size. Given this observation it is immediately apparent why excluders deter the free movement of workers through the hive. 1. So, are there other possible ways to exclude the queen yet not impede the workers? Yes, a barrier of several full frames of honey does seem to work (though I have known a queen to cross even that barrier) for the most part but keeping a full super of honey on at all times is sometimes not desirable or even possible. 2. Has someone ever tried using a slatted rack as a queen excluder? That is, might a slatted rack provide some unknown space to the queen that she might not cross? If not a slatted rack, might there be some other device like that that might work? 3. How about providing a second entrance, at the level of the first super of say 3/4 inch in height. That is, a regular wide entrance to the hive which also provides then provides a space of 3/4 inch between the top deep and the first super which will be bright and airy. Might this help to both relieve congestion and deter the queen from going up past that open space? 4. I saw that some folks recommend placing the queen excluder cross-wise so that the front and back of the hive are open to free movement but the queen will stay in the middle. Is this known to work? Any thoughts or insights? Stephen Augustine Bees By The Bay ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 18:39:40 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Digger Subject: Standards... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii There is a generic quality standard that could be used to establish processes and procedures for beekeeping generally, and to establish standards for suppliers. I am thinking of ISO 9000, a widely used quality system. The power of any standard lies in the number of folks choosing to comply. With sufficient numbers and a "value-added" system, suppliers would find that they had to comply to acquire and keep customers. Such a quality system could also be used to assure consumers that the bee products they buy meet a standard of purity. This would address more than woodwork, of course. Richard __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:37:40 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Apiarist@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Don't buy and queens, commentary on Russian queens MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bee meeting comments on installing Russian queens was to wait 24 hours after installing package, then install the queen cage. Hobbyist who followed this advice reported great brood production with whole frame being filled to each edge with perfect formation of caps. No elaboration was made on why the wait to install the queen. We tried Russian queen and package bees as well, and did not follow this (cause we did not know about it) and still did ok. - Emily Johnson, Michiana Bee. Assoc. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:52:04 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Alan Riach Subject: Woodenware Standards MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We used to have a Standard in the UK, but alas no longer due to "non participation by the beekeeping world" (to stay in force a British Technical Standard must have an active participating committee from the industry involved). The old BS has now been struck from the BS records. It was quite good, outlining box sizes and frame sizes, foundation sizes etc and of course people still use sme of the dimensions, however there were areas missing or at least suspect and I suspect the folk memories and faded BS copies are getting rarer and rarer. It still surprises me how much variation there is in basics such as e.g. frame top bar width - the correct width is 1 and 1/16" for 1and 3/8" frame spacing, many UK suppliers make the top bars 7/8" (except on "large" frames where they provide the larger bar- the bees always attempt to build comb between these narrow bars, similarly with bottom bars where notched wider bars allow the bees to keep things so much neater. We certainly needed a Standard in UK, having at least 7 hive types to contend with - British National, WBC(a twin walled aberration),both bottom bee space, Smith (the Scottish top bee space entry-designed for carrying up heathery hillsides for heather migration) British Commercial (the UK "large" hive-bottom bee space but sometimes top ), Wormit(a rebated edge wall hive -almost impossible to get into once the bees had glued-up) and of course the American Langstroths and Dadants. There are innuberable others (I confess to having made one myself-a "deep" Smith with Commercial frames) Only the Wormit seems to have truly died a death. Hive inventing seems to be an endemic disease in the UK. Woodenware standards are of course influenced by the sawmill trade -I believe the USA standard for a dressed (planed) 1" pine board ended up being "nailed down" at 3/4" (a bit thin by modern Consumer Association thinking) whereas that for cedar ended up at 7/8"- since hive dimensions are standardised on outside sizes, there we have a conflict right away(UK cedar hives are always a bit tight inside). Alan Riach Edinburgh,Scotland ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 03:07:47 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Don't buy and queens... In-Reply-To: <200106151332.f5FDWbP23489@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ...Bob commented about the issue of open > mated production queens resulting in a lower level of hygenic > behavior or SMR trait. In both cases researchers have done tests and > have shown that the selected X nonselected cross shows intermediate > levels of the selected trait i.e. not as good as the selected parent > but considerably better than nonselected stock. Both were shown by > this testing to have much better disease ( hygenic ) or mite ( SMR ) > resistance than the nonselected stock they were crossed with. Bottom > line: even if you don't control the mating you will get some > improvement in the first year. That is encouraging. I would also like to add that the belief that perfection may not be achieved immediately -- or ever -- is no reason not to start in that direction. For that matter, no one knows exactly what degree of hygienic behaviour (HB) is desirable, and if it can be overdone. Maybe, in the extreme, it has a downside. Maybe a consistent 50% is all we need. Maybe even 20% across the board (or even just eliminating those that score near zero) can make a huge difference -- or mean the difference between never seeing any AFB and having a bonfire. People are assuming that scoring 100% on the HB test is desirable -- and necessary. It is not. I think we must remember that the HB tests are extremely rigourous artificial benchmarks, and no one knows what level of HB test performance is necessary to get some significant improvement in AFB resistance in real life. Apparently it does not take much HB to knock out all signs of chalkbrood. It is not hard to visualize how *even a little resistance to AFB*, and the resulting early cleanup of diseased pupae, could prevent spore formation in hives that have only an occasional diseased cell. This could ultimately protect the hive -- and perhaps subsequently the whole operation or neighbourhood -- from avalanching into AFB breakdown. HB is a finger in the dyke. As it stands now, some bees in circulation are very susceptible to AFB. Once the hives they occupy break down with a few cells, then the rest of the hive gets contaminated and there is a serious risk to surrounding bees, even those that do have a higher breakdown threshold. This is due to the high levels of AFB spores that have been incubated in the susceptible hives and which get distributed in the normal course of bee and human activity. Eliminating extremely susceptible bees from the general population by flooding neighbourhoods with increased levels of HB will make it much harder for AFB to get a foothold. AFB starts with one or two hives in a yard breaking down, then that disease is spread through the other hives by the beekeeper and the bees. If that initial breakdown never happens, then we will never know how we have been saved from disaster. Black and white thinking and an emphasis on 'perfection or nothing' can keep us from many worthwhile projects. In this case perfection is not necessary and perhaps not even desirable. A little improvement in resistance could save a lot of money, and constant pressure towards the goal of increased HB (together with determining an ideal level of the trait) will pay huge dividends over time. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ PS: I wonder what those using the current hygienic stocks are experiencing in terms of AFB breakdowns and subsequent cleanup. I also wonder what the perspective on HB is from those countries which do not permit use of drugs to prevent AFB, and if they are using the HB test to improve their stocks. As I indicated in a previous post, some Australian bees I have here demonstrate truly amazing levels of chalkbrood, so I am wondering if HB awareness is strictly a North American phenomenon. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 06:33:41 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: Removing attic colony MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Carol & All, Carol worte: > I vacuum all the bees in sight and hope that I don't kill the queen. Carol gives a very similar method to the methods we show in the *Midwestern beekeepers* bee removal video. I have done very similar removals My method is to start vacuum on the honey comb first and remove those bees. I then remove the honey comb from the nest. Then look for queen on each frame of brood before vacuuming. Look first on the outside of the brood comb. By removing a comb at a time very easy. Then lay the oval comb down with your finger and look at the inside of the outside comb and the outside of the next comb. Queen is usually on frame with eggs/larva. I have found the queen in most instances. Cage the queen. I agree with Carol on her method and like her idea on the bee/vac. Other bee/vac designs are in the archives. Finding the queen instead of vacuuming helps assure her survival as a certain amount of bees usually don't survive the process but Carols method will work with greater risk to the queen. Bees die in bee vacs the most when the weather is hot. Cool weather extractions are the safest. Allow plenty of time for bee removal. The removal which I posted in the archives took four hours from start to Finnish with a few minutes the next day to go by and vacuum a couple handfuls of bees. A big demand exists for bee removal services. Myself and my friends charge for the service and when the customer sees the amount of time spent and the professional manner you approach and accomplish the job they are happy to pay and will tell all their friends. Set a reasonable fee and don't sell your service short. Do a professional job and don't raise the price when done. If you underestimated the job. Do a better job of pricing on the next job. Take your time and leave a satisfied customer behind each time and a positive impression of the beekeeper and our industry. In most areas of the U.S.(if not all) you CAN NOT apply pesticides of any kind without a pest control license but I believe in most areas (if not all) you can do bee removal without a pest control license. Most pest control businesses are glad to refer bee removal to the beekeeper. We usually remove any wood we need to perform the removal and then TRY to let the home owner do the putting back. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:02:34 +0100 Reply-To: Dave Cushman Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Do we need Standards For Woodenware? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all The adoption of standards need not cost anything... surely every company has a quality control system and I would expect that you have a "beekeeping manufacturers discussion group" I appreciate that... > Go to any lumberyard and you will find > dimensional differences even is the same lots. I have boxes built from > lumber from different yards that have different internal dimensions > because of the planing and sanding differences between yards. But surely that only applies to "home made" equipment. I would expect that your manufacturers convert and season their own stock to suit the exact purpose that is designated for. The precision and repeat accuracy cost a little more in terms of setting up time of machinery, but this is insignificant when taken accross thousands of boxes. It costs no more to make a "perfect" component than it does to make a "scrap" one. Regards From:- Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping and Bee Breeding, http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman IBList Archives, http://website.lineone.net/~d.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:26:07 +0100 Reply-To: Dave Cushman Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Excluding the Queen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Stephen & All There is a Queen excluder method that does not rely on actual gaps... It is mentioned at the bottom of the page:- http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman/excludertypes.html Regards From:- Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping and Bee Breeding, http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman IBList Archives, http://website.lineone.net/~d.cushman ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Augustine ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:22:46 +0100 Reply-To: Dave Cushman Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Woodenware Standards MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All It would still be possible to "shake out" a standard for Langstroth gear by recording the age and all dimensions from several hundred boxes... the consensus of dimensions and tolerances could then be statistically stripped out of the data. This consensus would then become the new "standard" which would be compatible with the majority and as time went on the new standard kit would dilute the non standard. Any parts that were drastically different could be adjusted to fit within the new standard or to be close to it. Perhaps the variable equipment that you have at present is so mixed that you have forgotten how much more easily bees can be worked with accurate kit that stays much cleaner when in use. There is a little information on the developement of British Hive standards on:- http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman/hist.html There may be a few errors in it, that I would welcome corrections for. Regards From:- Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping and Bee Breeding, http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman IBList Archives, http://website.lineone.net/~d.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:36:28 +0200 Reply-To: Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jorn Johanesson Subject: SV: Do we need Standards For Woodenware? In-Reply-To: <200106151825.f5FIPWP03700@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology > [mailto:BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu]På vegne af Digger > Sendt: 15. juni 2001 19:43 > Til: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu > Emne: Re: Do we need Standards For Woodenware? > There is a generic quality standard that could be used > to establish processes and procedures for beekeeping > generally, and to establish standards for suppliers. I > am thinking of ISO 9000, a widely used quality system. the ISO 9000 is just a factory qulity control system, where the factory sets the standards internal and get it confirmed national, but have to stand up to it afterwards. So standards in ISO 9000 can vary from factory to factory. Best regards Jorn Johanesson Multilingual software for beekeeping since 1997 hive note- queen breeding and handheld computer beekeeping software Updated 27-05-2001 Added grouping and colouring of hives + a lot more. all you need and a little more. being a little beekeeper or a big queen breeder free of charge up to 10 hives. Language added : Dutch, Pourtuguise, French home page = HTTP://apimo.dk e-mail Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk