From MAILER-DAEMON@trance.metalab.unc.edu Sun Jun 17 09:21:54 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 f5HDLsn11187 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:21:54 -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 f5HDJXP04145 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:19:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200106171319.f5HDJXP04145@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 LOG0106A" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Status: RO Content-Length: 230403 Lines: 4935 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:26:44 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Brenchley Subject: Re: vinegar fogger was mineral oil fogger MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Harrison writes: >Acetic acid readily breaks down . the hard covering (Chitin) which is made >up of calcium which is the hard shell of the varroa mite. >True or false varroa researchers? It's been a long time, but if my memory serves me right, chitin is a complex organic substance, rather than calcium, which also forms the hard exoskeleton of bees. That doesn't mean it won't necessarily be damaged by organic acids such as acetic (formic, lactic and oxalic obviously do something to the mite). Many invertebrates, including some arthropods such as crabs, do use calcium in their exoskeletons, but I would have thought some other mechanism would be at work here. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:33:49 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: vinegar fogger In-Reply-To: <200105311706.f4VH6rJ00704@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Bob & Liz wrote: > I looked up a quote to back up my theory on why Dr.R was successful in > keeping his hives alive for four years and those only using the FGMO had > poor results: > pg 190 of *Mites of the Honey Bee* > "Tobacco smoke increases mite fall and has been used for both detection and > CONTROL" . Fogging every two weeks with the tobacco smoke throughout the > year would drop varroa numbers possibly more than the FGMO. Hi Bob - While this is an interesting theory, it's lacking current information regarding FGMO research. In a recent correspondence with Dr. R, he made a comment about the use of tobacco smoke. "Use of tobacco smoke for knocking down mites for testing was discontinued to dismiss the argument that mites are being killed by tobacco smoke and not by FGMO. Mite testing is being done by means of bottom boards lined with FGMO impregnated paper and by actual removal of bee larvae to count varroa larvae." Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:07:40 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: mineral oil for varroa control In-Reply-To: <200105311433.f4VEXUJ25248@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Bill Truesdell wrote: > The problem with FGMO is it wraps itself in the mantel of science but > with tests, as you noted, that leave a lot of questions which are never > answered. When FGMO is tested by independent researchers, it always > comes up short. In some cases disasterously so. And it seems every time > it does, a new application method is developed. Hi Bill - Will you please put names to those other "independent researchers?" Here is a portion of an email I received from Dr. R recently and permission was given to pass along. Three cheers to Dr R for being persistent! My hat goes off to him for continuing his research in spite of those eager to label it as bad science. Regards, Barry ------- 1. I quit doing research in the US because government sponsored spraying programs for the Nile mosquito killed all but five of my research hives and the pesticide used is in the combs of the remaining colonies. There was no reimbursement for my loses and there is no reason to start again because the government is intent in continuing to spray (airborne) which means that any bee hives in their area of spray will die either directly or indirectly. All in all, a total disaster. 2. More importantly, the European Community (EC) has enacted environmental procedures to prevent this type of accidents hence beekeeping research over there is not likely to be lost due to this type of pesticide applications. Hence all my efforts in this area are being done in Spain. 3. Argentinean (second world honey producer) beekeepers, some with as many as 8000 hives, are now utilizing nothing but FGMO (fogging and emulsion impregnated cords) with tremendous success. There are many educational/private institutions presently engaged in FGMO research, some employing as many as 5000 colonies as published in several beekeeping trade magazines. 4. My research with FGMO continues full scale. I am working with my own colonies; advising other beekeepers who work on their own hives, and as technical advisor for a program owned and operated by local municipal governments who employ veterinarians and beekeepers to run their research programs. One of these municipalities has a project under study, the results of which will be published no later than July 2001. Tests include residue testing in hive products: honey, propolis and beeswax. 5. VERY IMPORTANT. Research has demonstrated that FGMO blocks the respiratory system of the mites causing their death by asphyxia. 6. Presently, all beehives employed for FGMO research utilize screened/perforated beehive bottoms. The reason for this is that mites under the influence of FGMO do not die immediately, (since their death is by asphyxia, hence they die slowly) but they do fall off the bees thus with perforated/screened bottoms they are taken off the bee population. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:40:06 +1200 Reply-To: paul@ww.co.nz Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Paul D Brown Subject: Formaldehyde In-Reply-To: <200105311716.f4VHGOJ01068@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greeting All, Has anyone, information on the use of methanal (formaldehyde) HCOH as a mite treatment? Following Bob H's logic .......... "The chemical formula for vinegar is CH3-COOH very similar to formic acid which is HCOOH. Do we know the way formic acid kills varroa and tracheal mites?" ..... Methanal (formaldehyde, or formalin) is much more user friendly and certainly kills bugs. Cheers Paul b. ...doesn't seem to improve a head cold though... On Behalf Of Bob & Liz Subject: Re: vinegar fogger ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:55:38 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Dr. Pedro P Rodriguez" Subject: Re: vinegar fogger MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Way to go Barry! Thanks for your input. I need friends like you! I saw that coming four years ago and dropped the use of tobacco smoke. It just did not matter to me and I saw that perhaps someone may (as they are doing now) think/argue that results were tainted by the use of tobacco. How do I read what is written on the list? It has been a long time since I sued that I have forgotten how it works. Best regards. Pedro ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:28:36 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: mineral oil for varroa control In-Reply-To: <200105311053.f4VArCJ17740@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Bob & Liz wrote: > Ps. Dr. R has discontinued the fogger and is now using the cord soaked in > FGMO. Not true, Bob. Both fogger and cords are still used in the application. >In my opinion from only reading I wonder what kind of results might be > had with open mesh floors and the FGMO fogger. If I am reading Dr.R's work > correctly he did his tests with solid bottom boards. Not sure on this one. He made a comment that "having perforated/screened bottom boards will contribute to eliminate mites." I don't know if this means they are being used on his hives or if he is just stating an additional fact about screened bottom boards. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 02:06:16 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: mineral oil for varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Barry & All, I am only a beekeeper and not a researcher and I consider the use of the tobacco smoke bad science. I consider the results the same as I would a experiment without controls. I am not alone in my thinking. I have watched several of my fellow beekeepers go bankrupt using treatments on faith only. Barry you and I go back quite a ways and you know I am always willing to give a new idea the benefit of the doubt but still I can't *come on board* without reasonable proof, tests which others can duplicate and tests with proper controls. I find Dr. R's statement that all his untreated controls died as very creditable. Two years is about the limit untreated hives with varroa have lived in my own experiments. > Here is a portion of an email I received from Dr. R recently and permission > > was given to pass along. Three cheers to Dr R for being persistent! My hat > goes off to him for continuing his research in spite of those eager to label > it as bad science.> Sadly those Argentine beekeepers are in my and Bill Truesdells opinion risking quite a bit by following on faith only. According to Junes ABJ (pg 402)all are not happy with the results they are getting. > > ------- > 1. I quit doing research in the US because government sponsored spraying > programs for the Nile mosquito killed all but five of my research hives and > the pesticide used is in the combs of the remaining colonies. There was no > reimbursement for my loses and there is no reason to start again because the > government is intent in continuing to spray (airborne) which means that any > bee hives in their area of spray will die either directly or indirectly. > All in all, a total disaster. I agree completely. Many hives were lost in the Miami,Florida area (thousands) and the beekeepers lost not only the hives but the legal fees. When you are talking about a experiment which needs to be run over several years the problem sets all interested parties back back to step one. The sooner we get concrete proof your theory works the sooner we can put the varroa issue to bed. > 2. More importantly, the European Community (EC) has enacted > environmental procedures to prevent this type of accidents hence beekeeping research over there is not likely to be lost due to this type of pesticide applications. Hence all my efforts in this area are being done in Spain. I have said in many Bee-L posts I move away from spraying. Remote areas are best. Dr R. has made a wise move. > > 3. Argentinean (second world honey producer) beekeepers, some with as > many as 8000 hives, are now utilizing nothing but FGMO (fogging and emulsion > impregnated cords) with tremendous success. There are many > educational/private institutions presently engaged in FGMO research, > some employing as many as 5000 colonies as published in several beekeeping trade magazines. This is great! The more people involved the better the conclusions. There were however as many people involved in essential oils which later were proved to be wothless in the 90's in the U.S.. I want to see a cheap,non chemical cure for varroa as much as the next beekeeper and applaud those researchers and beekeepers looking for the answer. Please keep us posted. First I knew of the research was (as I posted) in the small statement in my June ABJ. > > 5. VERY IMPORTANT. Research has demonstrated that FGMO blocks the respiratory system of the mites causing their death by asphyxia. Could you point us in the direction of this research? Is the data posted on the net or going to be in print soon? > 6. Presently, all beehives employed for FGMO research utilize > screened/perforated beehive bottoms. The reason for this is that mites under > the influence of FGMO do not die immediately, (since their death is by > asphyxia, hence they die slowly) but they do fall off the bees thus with > perforated/screened bottoms they are taken off the bee population. I am new to the FGMO discussion but my comment yesterday was the open meshed floors would have been a big asset BUT again tests with omf will flaw the results UNLESS the FGMO is sold as a package IPM control. In other words * the works when used in combination with OMF,tobacco smoke and mineral oil* There is a big difference in proving a theory to the rest of the world and proving a theory to yourself and friends. Sadly I am not saying things Dr. R hasn't heard before. Good luck sincerely with the FGMO Dr. R. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri Ps. Many IPM methods are available to knock varroa off bees to drop below a OMF without coating your hive with mineral oil. Tobacco, sugar, creosote bush smoke and grapefruit leaves to name a few. Research has shown the varroa do not need to die. They simply need not be able to reattach to bees. Hmmm. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 23:01:48 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Michael W Stoops Subject: Re: mineral oil for varroa control Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Over the past two years I have seen quite a bit of discussion about using food grade mineral oil with mixed conclusions. My question: What is the vector of control with FGMO? Does it affect the respiration of the mites? Does it interfere with the mites ability to attach itself to its host, ie. powdered sugar? What is the control mechanism? MIKE In lover Alabama > I used FGMO for two years without any other treatments and good results were > obtained (hives lived). > > Clay > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:14:35 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Dr. Pedro P Rodriguez" Subject: Re: mineral oil for varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Life goes on, praise The Lord. The use of screened/perforated boards was adapted into my research system about four years ago. The thinking in adapting this system was precisely to remove dying mites from the hive environment. It was soon found to work and implemented henceforth. Screened bottom boards also facilitate "drop-off mite counts" which are also utilized for evaluation of the FGMO treatments in addition to larval counts. Best regards. Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:13:25 -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: mineral oil for varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry Birkey wrote: > Hi Bill - > > Will you please put names to those other "independent researchers?" The first tests were done by beekeepers in the local chapter of the State organization under DrRs supervision and the test failed, if you recall. That was the disaster. The experiment was ended by the beekeepers because of losses. Another by French scientists that showed the method had promise but compared to other methods they could not recommend it. The third by, if I recall the country correctly, a researcher in Sweden who treated with Oxalic acid after treating with FGMO and it showed a remaining high mite count. FGMO does drop mites. That has never been contested. But so do many other techniques which are cheaper, less labor intensive and more effective. Barry, I am happy DrR is enjoying success in Argentina. For all of us, could you please let us know the articles in the journals that demonstrate the effectiveness of FGMO done by independent researchers. I would love to be proved wrong, since my position has always been a desire for independent data on FGMO. As you recall, I supported it in its inception. I published his research in our State newsletter, with permission. The rational of suffocating the mites made sense. The research looked good. But it did not live up to the initial research when tried elsewhere. So I have been and will continue to be skeptical. Any proponent of an effective Varroa control would want to see their technique supported by independent research. So would I. And if it is effective in Argentina, then I am sure there must be a wealth of information available. You might point us to it. Thanks, Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:17:24 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Maurice Cobo Subject: Russian Carniolan MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Ladies and Gentlemen: Has anyone had experience with the newly imported Russian queens? They been here in the US for about 3 or 4 years now. Does anyone know how they are doing in the terms of Varroa ?. Also how are they in terms of Honey Production, Temperament, Wintering, etc. Thanks for any experience information. Maurice ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:40:41 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Seeing, "Hearing", Smelling, & Dancing Comments: cc: smjc@svrc.uq.edu.au, b.wixted@uws.edu.au, wstansfi@calpoly.edu, Julian.ODea@affa.gov.au, PayneT@missouri.edu, timothy.paine@ucr.edu, phwells@earthlink.net, ckstarr99@hotmail.com, Vredma@PLANT3.AGRIC.ZA, aczarnecka@um.opole.pl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A recent set of exchanges on BEE-L centered on some rather mild comments by Barry Birkey, followed by many rather testy responses by James Fischer. I understand why Fischer is upset, since I have been through this same exercise many times in the past few decades. Fischer's responses unfortunately contained many errors of fact about our work and position in the controversy, but members of this list need only go to the following website for clarification: http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm I thus need provide no rebuttal to many of Fisher's comments. I thank him, though, for this opportunity to elaborate upon a few points that he raised in both of his responses (5/26 and 5/29). 1) Fischer wrote: "The 'compass direction' is not at all 'cryptic'. Any child of 10 with an observation hive can watch the dances, transpose the bee dances into a distance/direction vector, go to the location cited, and count the visiting bees. People have been verifying this over and over for years." My response: Yes, the dance maneuver contains information but VERY inaccurate information. For instance, if a bee returns from a source 1000 yards from the hive and executes the maneuver, the error (as determined both by bee language advocates and by us) is about plus or minus about 400 yards (both in distance and direction). That means that the forager is "describing" an area of about a half million square yards. And that doesn't even include the problem of between-bee error." I must agree with Birkey that such information is, indeed, cryptic. Fischer apparently has access to an observation hive. He should take a wax pencil or crayon and draw a line on the glass over the thorax of a dancing bee as it moves along. He will find that he will not have a "figure-8" on the glass when he is done. 2) Fischer wrote: "Regardless of individual opinions, recent work with "Robo-Bee" by Thomas Seeley, of Cornell University ... tends to remove what little doubt might have remained about the "dance vs odor" question." Such certainty is admirable in religion, but we in science are not supposed to have such firm convictions. I have not had access to details of the Seeley experiment as briefly described but instead cover here some simple logic. (a) Von Frisch clearly stated in 1937, "I succeeded with all kinds of flowers with the exception of flowers without any scent...The dancing bee can communicate a message about all kinds of scented flowers by means of the scent adhering to its body." (As Birkey mentioned --- see Item #1B on the website.) That is, without scent, there is no recruitment. Both von Frisch and we learned that the hard way! Sucrose solution has a vapor pressure of zero and hence has no scent. One must therefore be careful when conducting experiments to make ABSOLUTELY certain that no odor exists (such as perfume or deodorant on one of the people conducting the experiment). According to Fischer, "[the robo bee] dispenses a 'sample' of nectar to bees..." How could they (or Fischer) be sure NO odor was involved? We can also ask, "How long did it take the new recruits in the Seeley experiment to find the food source? (See below.) (b) Consider the history of the controversy (Item #1A on the website). In the 1940s people felt that von Frisch had either "discovered the language" of bees or that he had "proved" that bees have a "language" (as I myself believed during my doctoral research). The publication of the results of our double controlled and crucial experiments in the late 1960s indicated otherwise. We had stumbled onto the validity of von Frisch's 1937 conclusions --- without odor there is no recruitment. After our experimental challenge of existing dogma, a sequence of researchers has attempted to rescue the original hypothesis. James Gould (initially with co-workers) temporarily rescued the hypothesis in the minds of advocates but also found that searching bees took too long to find the "target" food source for them to have "flown directly out," as stated by von Frisch. Gould later admitted that von Frisch had not really demonstrated that bees had a "language" after all but concluded that he himself had done so. Four German and Danish experimenters (expending a half million dollars) build a "robot bee" to "prove" that the "language" existed after all --- apparently not accepting Gould's assertion. A close examination of their results, though, reveals that they did not succeed (see Item #15 on the website, now being translated for Polish beekeepers). One of those researchers, in a related set of experiments, found that recruits searched an average of two hours before reaching the target dish (less than a minute flight time away from the hive). Now (according to Fischer) Seeley and co-workers have apparently repeated a robot bee experiment and have also claimed success. Will those claims also erode in time? Why have all these researchers expended so much (taxpayer) money and energy these past few decades in repeated attempts to "prove" that bees have a "language"? After all, they presumably believed that von Frisch had done so in the 1940s. The answer: Bee language advocates apparently now have little confidence in their convictions. 3) Fischer wrote: "If odor had anything to do with recruitment, then Robo-Bee would be unable to recruit any bees at all...." That's exactly what should have happened (no recruitment with no odor), just as von Frisch insisted upon in 1937 (see above) and as we found in many experiments designed to exclude odor. 4) Fischer wrote "I have no doubt that odor, colors, and other "landing zone cues" are used by bees AFTER they arrive at the general location designated by a bee dance. Here is another interesting exercise Fischer can do. He can set up a hive and have a few marked foragers visit a feeding station located a few hundred yards away (to make sure he is not dealing with round dances). He can then watch recruited bees come into the station from downwind with the aid of binoculars. (We have never been able to get bee language advocates to do that simple exercise.) 5) Fischer wrote: "If an experienced forager knows of a good source of pollen/nectar that is within 20 SECONDS flight time, which dance does she do? She does the 'round dance'." Quite wrong! An empty bee flies 7.5 yards per second and can cover 150 yards in 20 seconds, well beyond the range of "round dances." Fischer's implication that I don't know the difference between round and waggle dances doesn't ring true. After all, I was the first person to tape record and analyze the sounds of dancing bees. (See Item # 4 on the website.) 6) Fischer wrote: "For there to be a "controversy", there must be more than one scientist to disagree. The only person who seems to be promoting "odor" over dance is Dr. Wenner." We have found that argument to be a common ploy by bee language advocates (try to isolate the dissident). Fischer claimed that he had read all the material on the website, but he seems to have missed the fourth from the last item, UNSOLICITED COMMENTS. Besides those little clips, I constantly receive letters from all over the world endorsing our position. I belong to several beekeeping and research organizations (e.g., ABF, WAS, AAPA, CA State Beekeepers Assoc.) When I go to meetings of those groups, I am warmly received. I am also invited to participate in various symposia and write invited reviews about the subject. Even in the last few days I have received several notes of support. Fischer's comments and attitude remind me of an episode. Some years back, a graduate student from Cornell visited our campus and thought it appropriate to visit me, even though he knew we were in opposite camps on the "language" topic. After about 15 minutes of tense participation on his part, he blurted out, "Why you aren't such a bad person, after all!" We then had a friendly visit. Such is the way with bias and indoctrination. I am sure that if Fischer sat down with me over a beer, he would find I was not the oddball he has portrayed me to be. 7) Fischer wrote: "How many researchers and/or beekeepers would agree that any "big red flag" is anywhere in sight? Show of hands, ladies and gentlemen? People with observation hives get TWO votes. People with entomology degrees get THREE votes, but only if they kept an observation hive alive through winter." Wow! Just think how fast science would progress if issues such as these were settled by vote! That notion fails to take into account the power of indoctrination. If scientists had voted in Galileo's day, for instance, we might still believe that the Sun goes around the Earth (those interested in the subject should read the recent book, GALILEO'S DAUGHTER). If the scientific and medical communities had voted in Pasteur's day, we might not have pasteurized milk today. ******* All of this exchange has reminded me of a statement by Nobel Prize winner Peter Medawar in his 1979 book, ADVICE TO A YOUNG SCIENTIST: "I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice that this: the intensity of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not." And all that my co-workers and I have been doing is attempting to illustrate how our experimental results agreed with a 1937 finding made by another Nobel Prize winner, Karl von Frisch: "I succeeded with all kinds of flowers with the exception of flowers without any scent." and "The bees communicated with fly out and look for the flowers with this specific scent. Flying out in all directions, they find out in the shortest time the plant which has commenced to bloom, wherever it is in the entire flying district." (See Item #1B on the website.) The time it take a searching bee to find a target food source certainly agrees with von Frisch's conclusions. If our taking such a stand is criminal, then my co-workers and I are guilty! May I repeat a point I have made before on this list. We have had the bee language hypothesis for half a century, but beekeepers have yet to receive benefit from that hypothesis --- despite the expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayer money in attempts to prove its validity. What would such an expenditure of money accomplished had it been used for studies of the importance of wind direction on colony foraging patterns and pollination of crops? (See Items #24, 25, and 26 on the website.) 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] ******************************************************************** * * "The history of science teaches us that each time we think * that we have it all figured out, nature has a radical surprise * in store for us that requires significant and sometimes drastic * changes in how we think the world works." * * Brian Greene (1999:373) * ******************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:30:43 -0400 Reply-To: Charles Harper Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Charles Harper Subject: Re: Russian Carniolan In-Reply-To: <200106011606.f51G6YJ06335@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Has anyone had experience with the newly imported Russian queens? >They been here in the US for about 3 or 4 years now. They have been released only 2 seasions now, I have had them for 3 seasions now. < Does anyone know how they are doing in the terms of Varroa ?. They are resistant to Varroa but they will recire fall or spring treatment to make a crop, no treatment they will still surive with a reduced crop. They are verry resistant to TM no treatment needed waste of money. >Also how are they in terms of Honey Production, Temperament, Wintering, etc. They are equal to the bees we have now for honey production, Temperament is verry good in the pure stock, temperament in the crosses is from good to bad, wintering I can't comment on as our winters are verry mild here in the South they use very little honey compared to our local bees in bad times. When rasing queens the timing is not like our bees in that the matings will take longer, our bees is 15 days the Russians can be 20+ days depending on weather. Harper's Honey Farm Charles Harper Carencro LA 1000+ Hives ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 22:20:40 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Carolyn Ehle Subject: Re: mineral oil for varroa control MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I have been using mineral oil (FGMO) as part of an evolving IPM program since '99. My last report to the list was 9/99 (so this post may be a bit long). I have not used scientific methods like controls (I have a BS in Biology and like most biologists have limited income for expensive studies). I do keep thorough notes. I now have 40 hives and counting. Lost 1 hive of 30 (March starvation in out yard) last winter here in the South Carolina Piedmont after 3 years of brutal drought. I have never used Apistan or Coumaphos. I'm a newbie beekeeper, only since '97 tho with good mentoring. My mineral oil method was inspired by a UVA essential oil trackboard recipe in '99. I melt beeswax (my own non-pesticide wax) over hot water and add an equal amount of FGMO. This melted glop is painted thinly inside the hive body walls (and on bottom boards if solid). During active seasons I TRY to replace the glop every 6 weeks by moving frames into a freshly glopped box as I inspect them. Presumably little bee feet pick up the glop and it is spread onto mites through grooming. Mites that fall onto glop get bogged down and then die (observation, not speculation). The one hive that didn't get any spring glop had nervous numbers of mites in May. Other hives, so far so good. We'll see come September. In 2000 I went to all screened bottom boards. I use an extruded polyethylene plastic 1/8" mesh from our fish farm. Cheap, non-toxic, easy to work with, but un-tested by mice, which don't bother us. In 2000 I used formic, as labeled, on most hives in March. I had planned to use it in 11/00 but unusually cold weather pushed it to 1/01 for all hives. Daytime 50's (F), nighttime 20's/30's is probably too cool to release enough vapor in one brood cycle. Formic seemed most effective on tracheal but apparently helped some on varroa. This year's plan depends on how bad the drought is. Other parts of my IPM: Drone trapping and freezing (drone foundation); reversing drone-carrying boxes to the bottom over mesh; purchase of and selection of diverse hygienic stock and stock showing signs of suppressed mite reproduction; introduction of feral bees to genetic pool that have survived at least one wild winter; re-queening; powdered sugar treatments in all or part of the hive (depends on honey flow, brood), especially when multiple mites are found in drone brood; and NUTRITION, including mineral salt and agricultural lime spread on the shores of one pond near where bees collect water (they like it). Also every time I go in a hive I use a pastry bag to stripe the top bars with a pollen-substitute/sugar/water/cold-pressed-vegetable-oil mixture. The latter ingredient replaces Crisco patties, a nutritional disaster (do bees get hardening of the arteries?) which my bees wouldn't eat. When fresh it gives those little faces something to do besides sting, which is helpful since I rarely use smoke, tho I'm considering it if I can get grapefruit leaves. Also puts all basic nutritional elements throughout hive (see Taber's thoughts on pollen). I group-fed dry pollen substitute and sugar syrup during Jan and Feb, plus sugar syrup in some nucs and splits. I'm perpetually playing catch-up on reading the bee-l list -- but many thanks to all who contribute. Special kudos to Dr. Rodriguez on the FMGO thing -- like so many issues of non-patentable foods and supplements, there is no "scientific evidence" because there's no money for scientific study. At least in nutrition there's a body of basic biology and animal-feed research from before the 80's when basic research became an endangered species. Most of the latest nutritional headlines (Trans-fatty acids! Vitamin E! Soy phytoestrogens!...) can be found in Adelle Davis' 1960's analysis of existing literature. Too bad no-one was working on bees! Maybe we could learn from the fruit fly guys....what are the essential nutrients for insects??? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 20:13:19 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Seeing, "Hearing", Smelling, & Dancing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dr. Wenner (himself) said: > A recent set of exchanges on BEE-L centered on some rather mild comments > by Barry Birkey, followed by many rather testy responses by James Fischer. > I understand why Fischer is upset..... Thanks for taking the time to enlighten me, and perhaps a few others who are reading this thread. While I was disappointed that Mr. Birkey had not read basic texts on the subject, I certainly was not "upset". I am also not upset over the unfortunate use of adjectives like "testy". As to what is "fact" and what is not, I can only point to the literature, which is assumed to stand on its own merit. As for "voting", scientists "vote" all the time, at least on methodology. Some call it "peer review". If you say that "waggle dances" with durations of less than a second exist, I'll openly admit to never noticing them. But let's accept that a waggle dance IS done for distances that close as a "given", and continue... As to "accuracy", if one were to agree with Seeley's statement that each 100 meters of distance is represented by roughly 75 milliseconds (0.075 seconds) of waggle, I think anyone could understand how hard it would be to accurately measure the length of a waggle dance when the food source is only 1000 meters away. 0.075 / 100 * 1000 = 0.75 seconds So, an error of 400 yards in 1000 yards could be nothing more than an inability to measure such short "waggles" accurately. 1000 yds ~ 1km, which implies a 1 second "waggle". Human reaction time is what? About 1/3rd of a second? (What's a bee's reaction time? Faster than a human's, but what?) ...but if Dr. Wenner says that the "waggle dance" is used to communicate about distances as short as 150 yards (roughly 150 meters), this means that we are talking about waggles that last for roughly 1/10th of a second. 0.075 / 100 * 150 = 0.11 seconds Aside from a high-speed video/film camera with a built-in timer having 0.001 second resolution, I can't imagine how anyone could even attempt to detect and measure such waggles with any accuracy. So, the phenomena being measured is at the very edge of perception. No big surprise that one can have a significant error when one is measuring tiny intervals of time. I don't really think it matters if the error is on the part of the bees or the grad students doing the measuring. Heck, all I have is a stopwatch, so I'll continue to overlook all but the longer waggles. I'll even likely continue never even noticing the waggles that last less than a second. Anyway, the longer waggles are excuses for longer walks with the dogs. :) One last item: > I am sure that if Fischer sat down with me over a beer, > he would find I was not the oddball he has portrayed me to be. I don't know where I "portrayed" anyone as anything, but I certainly want you to have an apology if you took any offense to anything I said. I mean no harm to anyone. Let me rephrase my objections in light of your reply: a) I still think that the conclusions of the paper cited were misleading. b) Any test of "accuracy" need to measure distances large enough to swamp out any measurement error. c) "20 seconds out" is simply too close to the hive for any valid measurement, even when using extraordinary equipment. d) Any test not designed to swamp out error will be misleading. If you say the dances were "waggle dances", I'll take you on your word. But I'm not going to even try to measure an interval that brief, and I submit that any attempt to do so is doomed to have the "signal" lost in noise. jim Farmageddon ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:09:55 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Alan Pagliere Subject: FYI: Hive and the Honeybee MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm a hobbyist beekeeper. The rain of late here in Ann Arbor, Michigan has kept my bees indoors a lot. But that's not why I'm writing. My day job is that of programmer at the University of Michigan's Digital Library Production Service. One project of DLPS is the "Making of America" where page images (and the OCR-ed text, not 100% accurate but at least searchable) of books printed in the US between 1850 and 1875 mostly (other years are represented too) are made available to the world via the Web. A colleague of mine, while searching for the phrase "working class" came upon Langstroth's treatise. I didn't know we had it. For those of you interested in perusing it, point your browser to this URL: http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa&&view=toc&idno=AGL2770.0001.001 ---------------------------- Alan Pagliere Information Retrieval Specialist Digital Library Production Service (http://www.umdl.umich.edu/) University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1205 ---------------------------- pagliere@umich.edu ---------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:30:10 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Dr. Pedro P Rodriguez" Subject: Re: mineral oil for varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi. Yes, to both questions. 1. It has been proven in laboratory tests that mineral oil blocks the respiratory system of bee mites causing their death by asphyxia. Reported in early FGMO test results years ago. 2. Yes, mineral oil (fogging and emulsion treatments) places a delicate oil film on the surfaces of the bees causing the mites inability to adhere to the body of the bees. FGMO works better than sugar powder because it is applied in a more uniform manner, more cost effective and longer lasting than sugar powder. Best regards. Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 07:02:27 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Adrian Wenner-Did the colonies survive? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Several years ago Adrian wrote of some colonies he discovered that had survived in the wild and possibly were varroa resistant. Just wonder what happened to them? Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 04:19:37 EDT 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: Queenless behavior MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don't just listen to the anecdotes of others. Try for yourself. Observe a queenright hive so you know just how it behaves normally. Remove the queen and watch and listen to the way they behave. Better still have 2 matched hives close to each other so you can compare one without the queen with one with. Press an ear to the outside of a queenright brood box and tap the box once. Do the same with a queenless hive. Tell us the difference. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:17:15 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Russian Carniolan Comments: To: Charles Harper MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, Thanks to Mr. Harper for sharing with us his experence with the Russian queens. Tomorrow (June 2nd.) Dr. Marla Spivak will speak at the *Northeast Kansas Funday* in Tonganoxie,Kansas. You can register at the door. The event is being held at the Leavenworth County Fairgrounds. Sadly I will have to miss the event myself due to my surgery recovery. If you live in the area and need directions email me in the morning and I will email directions. Dr. Spivak's talk is : Comparison of Hygenic,Russian and bees bred for SMR( suppression of mite reproduction). My close friend and fellow *want a bee* queen breeder will be in the front row taking notes. He better be or I will be very upset! Both of us plan to switch to grafting the new SMR queens this summer. Both of us have been very happy with our hygenic queens but we both plan to try a artificially inseminated SMR queen. I plan to share my successes and if any disappointments with the list. I also plan to share my fellow beekeepers sucesses or failures with the list also but haven't told him yet! My friend has raised over one thousand queens from his hygenic artificially inseminated breeder queen. All of her offspring had a trait I found most interesting which I have talked about before. Her offspring flew two full hours earlier than bees in our care from all other queen breeders. She was a Carniolan queen. I must note my Italian hygenic queens flew at the same time as the other queens. This trait alone has great implications in Apple polination and honey production. Bob Ps. Yes Allen you have convinced me to get on the SMR bandwagon! Sorry I gave you and Aaron my negative views after the ABF convention. I try to keep a open mind on these things and had didn't want to get my hopes up again to be disappointed later. To late now I am excited about exploring the SMR theory. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 13:25:38 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: Cell size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Bill & All, Bill wrote: Just stumbles across this in searching for more info an cell size and > AHB. It is from http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mussen/7-8-97.html What keyed my interest was the comment on increased varroa in EHB combs. To me Bill evidence is out there to link small cell and reduced varroa reproduction. Other researchers strongly disagree. A example is the new book *Mites of the Honey Bee* by Webster & Delaplane. Only one place in the book is cell size discussed and they say: "The smaller cells of AHB ,along with the fact these bees have fewer mites than European bees within the same setting has led to the conclusion that possibly a small cell size would limit mite reproduction. Just the opposite seems to be true. Larger cells have fewer mites." I disagree and don't understand the reason for their conclusion but they quote as reference the work of Ramon & Van Laere pg 521-529 of the book* Asian Apiculture* by Wicwas Press. I do not have access to *Asian Apiculture* at this time. Maybe another Bee-L reader will read the reference and care to comment. I highly recommend *Mites of the Honey Bee* to all beekeepers. I suspect that Webster & Delaplane have found a study to rebuke small cell alone as the reason for the lack of reproduction of varroa on AHB. Bill Truesdell has found a report which shows a 50% increase in varroa reproduction when AHB (Africanized Honey Bee)are put on large cell European cell size. The UC Davis paper would indicate cell size is more important than many previously thought. Both sides of the cell size issue are firmly rooted in their beliefs. As size goes down, SMR increases? I don't know the answer you seek. Maybe Dr. Marla Spivak or others might. All I have been told is we know SMR exists and SMR queens pass the trait on to daughters. This time last year I had never heard of SMR (Suppression of mite reproduction). Sincerely, Bob Harrison Ps. Beekeepers keep learning new words and abr.. like SMR & PMS to say nothing of *Varroa Destructor*. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 02:03:23 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: Northeast Kansas Beekeeping Funday Hello All, I was told tonight Dr. Marla Spivak is taking delivery of SMR queens next week to try to incorporate into her line of hygienic queens. In searching the archives I found only two hits on SMR bees. Allen Dicks and mine. Please share any new information with the list about this exciting new research. I was told my friend Lloyd Spears impressed the *locals* with his presentation on pollen collecting at the event today. If you are reading this post Lloyd I will try and call in the morning and maybe we can meet before you fly back home or at least talk on the phone. I ventured out tonight to meet with Michael Vanarsdale(commercial beekeeper from Nebraska) for the first time since my surgery. Michael and his wife *Chris* are in town staying with Glenn & Joanne Davis of *Bell Hill Honey*. Michael & Chris gave the presentations on beeswax at the event today. Sounds like I missed out on a fun and informative beekeeping event. Bob Ps. the funday is a annual event. There were many other speakers including Dr. Chip Taylor and Gary Ross ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 00:10:15 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: mineral oil for varroa control In-Reply-To: <200106011049.f51An6J26539@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Bob - > I have watched > several of my fellow beekeepers go bankrupt using treatments on faith only. > Barry you and I go back quite a ways and you know I am always willing to > give a new idea the benefit of the doubt but still I can't *come on board* > without reasonable proof, tests which others can duplicate and tests with > proper controls. I find Dr. R's statement that all his untreated controls > died as very creditable. Two years is about the limit untreated hives with > varroa have lived in my own experiments. What do you mean, "on faith only"? One has to assume personal responsibility in the choices they make. Anyone who blindly goes about making decisions in a business will fail. If these beekeepers went bankrupt from using treatments on faith only, are they not the ones to blame? Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. I practice faith in my personal life when I'm dealing with God. I certainly wouldn't approach my treatment methods on faith alone. Never have. Like the often quoted passage in Tom's signature file, "Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Test doesn't mean criticize or attack. Bob, as long as I've known you, you have always been supportive of alternative ideas and methods. I can understand a certain amount of caution, and even skepticism when it comes to new or different ideas (ie FGMO, natural cell size, vinegar misting, essential oils, etc). Isn't it interesting though, that these very critics who can point out all the potential pitfalls of a treatment like FGMO or small cell and make the point that it is 'poor/bad science' and lacking 'peer review', won't think twice about putting things like Apistan and coumaphos in their hives (that I guess is considered 'good science' for it's approved by our government), even when there are published papers on the known dangerous aftermath of using these chemicals? Do they really think alternative methods in general are really worse? They are ready to pounce on the alternative methods that are being tested and developed by independent beekeepers at their own personal cost, while their own bees are having to deal with increasing levels of chemical residues which are creating a host of problems in their hives. Look at how many beekeepers, following the 'approved' method, are going under. This is a better scenario? Something seems way out of balance here. I think people better look at the log in their own hive before pointing out the stick in someone else's. > Sadly those Argentine beekeepers are in my and Bill Truesdells opinion > risking quite a bit by following on faith only. According to Junes ABJ (pg > 402)all are not happy with the results they are getting. All are not happy with the results they are getting with 'approved' methods either! I'll assume Argentine beekeepers are taking a risk based on all the study and testing done to date. > This is great! The more people involved the better the conclusions. There > were however as many people involved in essential oils which later were > proved to be wothless in the 90's in the U.S.. I want to see a cheap,non > chemical cure for varroa as much as the next beekeeper and applaud those > researchers and beekeepers looking for the answer. Applaud should be all our responses to people who are trying to give us a cheap, non chemical cure for varroa. Because it isn't, we end up alienating those people who end up going else where to do their work. We, on the other hand, succeed at displaying our masterful ability to pick apart and find the 'flaws.' When the period of 'testing' is finished, that is when it will either be proven worthless or useful. Until that time, why don't people do some testing themselves if they are serious about alternatives. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 00:35:21 EDT 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: Russian Carniolan MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob, Noting your comment to Allen and Aaron regarding SMR, I have to comment. In 1948, Steve Taber persuaded me to switch from Italians (which I had 15 years, starting in 1933) to Carniolans. Smartest thing that I ever did. However, back in the 50's, 60's and 70's good Carniolan queens were difficult to find, and I tried perhaps every Carniolan breeder in the U.S. Finally, Sue Cobey appeared and working under the principles of Laidlaw and Page with the closed population breeding theory, Sue developed the New World Carniolan strain which Freidrich Ruttner described as the nearest strain to the original Carniolan as he had ever seen. Of course, Sue is maybe the world leader in artificial insemination today. Why am I saying all of this? The "Russian" bee IS A CARNIOLAN, and A.I. has been demonstrated by famous scientists as the way to go to maintain the good points of a particular race or strain. Sorry about you hernia. I wish I could recover from my series of 5 strokes in the past 11 years. I have great difficulty walking, and manage my remaining 20 colonies from the back of a used golf cart; but I AM ALIVE and healthy! Hope all is well. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 11:22:43 -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: mineral oil for varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Barry & All, < What do you mean, "on faith only"? > Quote from dictionary of the number one definition of faith: 1. Confidense in or dependence on a person,statement,or thing as TRUSTWORTHY. Beekeepers are adjusting everyday to change in the beekeeping industry. New words to learn the meaning of. Treatments which worked in the past which now are not providing control. Many are putting faith in what the *other beekeeper* is doing. The *domino* effect has wiped out many beekeeping operations. Each beekeeper has to learn what is going on in his or her hives if they are to continue beekeeping. The new beekeeper can cntinue to survive by buying packages each spring but what happens when they call south to order packages and the operator says the phone number is no longer in service? Barry's definition of faith: My dictionary lists Barry's difinition as second. 2. belief without certain proof. To a scientist or a researcher following difinition one or two or Barry's is a recipe for problems. The smart beekeeper tests a percentage of his hives with alternative methods but in my opinion NEVER all your hives.At least not until you haved proved to yourself the method will work. " Also BEWARE the advice on varroa control from your biggest competiter on the store shelves. He might like to see you go out of business!" (Bob Harrison 2001) My competiter said to kick each hive once in the spring and twice in the fall to dislodge the varroa mites. Test doesn't mean criticize or attack. I agree with Barry completely on this issue. Discussion brings the issue out in the open for all to examine. Crticize and attack a person or viewpoint does not help or solve the issue. Only causes hard feelings and drives list members away from the list when we all need to learn from each other. > Bob, as long as I've known you, you have always been supportive of > alternative ideas and methods. I can understand a certain amount of caution, > and even skepticism when it comes to new or different ideas (ie FGMO, > natural cell size, vinegar misting, essential oils, etc). In my opinion with a little elbow grease and using all of the IPM methods you might come close to treatment with a 98% chemical control. Coumaphos was the last 98% control to come out of the old medicene bag. There is no other. We now have to look harder at SMR bees and IPM controls. Not something I am looking forward to. Do they really think alternative methods in general > are really worse? They are not worse but need to be representated without whitewash. Like growing a garden without pesticides they are not easy to impliment. Look at how many beekeepers, following the 'approved' method, are > going under.Something seems way out of balance > here. I think people better look at the log in their own hive before > pointing out the stick in someone else's. Barry makes a excellent point. Losses of hives in Missouri to fluvalinate resistant mites has been 50 to 100% in over half the outfits this spring. All the beekeepers which cussed Coumaphos last year are swearing by it this year. As Barry said there were many other possible choices for those beekeepers but the easiest way was the choice of all I talked to. Could Barry be looking farther into the future than most beekeepers? > > Sadly those Argentine beekeepers are in my and Bill Truesdells opinion > > risking quite a bit by following on faith only. According to Junes ABJ (pg > > 402)all are not happy with the results they are getting. > All are not happy with the results they are getting with 'approved' methods > either! I'll assume Argentine beekeepers are taking a risk based on all the > study and testing done to date. I am going out on a limb here and say the Argentine beekeepers increased their number of hives by almost double after the honey price surge in 1996. Now the price of bulk honey in Argintina is less than HALF the price it was in 1996. A huge amount of honey is sitting unbought in Argentine warehouses even with the Argentines willing to accept the lowest prices in the world. Quote June ABJ pg. 402. "Argentine prices remain at the same level of our previous report-30 cents per pound "drums excluded." I believe the Argentines are desperate to cut costs and improve the bottom line. FGMO seems logical. I have already said more than I have a right to say so will be quiet and watch the senario play out. Enjoyed the post Barry and only wish to discuss and not argue,criticize or attack. Your friend, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 13:57:05 -0600 Reply-To: Dennis Murrell Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dennis Murrell Subject: Re: Russian Carniolan MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob & Liz" To: Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:17 PM Subject: Russian Carniolan Hello, I would like to share my additional observations of the Russian lines. I have used the Russian breeders whose progeny were mated to my own local hygienic stock. As noted in my previous post they were very resistant to the varroa mite. However, I had problems with tracheal mites in the Russian crosses this last winter loosing 50% of those hives. I have not treated for tracheal mites in my own lines. First generation crosses showed some hive defensiveness but were easily controlled with smoke. Second generation Russians were very feisty requiring frequent use of smoke. They would intercept me around 75 feet from the bee yard and rapidly and repeatedly head butt me without stinging. In the bee yard they would run through the hair on my arms and go through the motions of stinging without actually stinging. They had a keen interest in human breath often investigating it from 10' away, behaving somewhat like what I have read about the stingless bees from South America. If the hives were disturbed without smoke, the bluffing and head butting turned instantly to stinging with the bees following 75 to 100 feet. Needless to say I have replaced all my Russian queens. Within a week of replacing the queens, hive temperament changed. The interception and following occurred only inside the bee yard. Hives could be opened with normal smoke use. Best Wishes Dennis Murrell ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 13:18:20 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Brad Young Subject: How to Requeen now? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all, I'm not only new to this list Server, but I'm also new to beekeeping. This is my first year and I have two hives. One, which started as a 3 lb. package of Italians in April, is doing great, with a wonderfully active queen. The other is a colony of Carniolans that I bought from a gentleman that had to move from the area. Unfortunately, they started showing signs of wanting to swarm this spring, which I have learned is their nature with their big initial build-up in early spring. I like this trait (the build-up, not the swarming LOL) but unfortunately I did what is now recommended not to do, I destroyed most of their queen cells as I found them. A week ago I noticed that there was no new cells or larvae to be found, but a lot of capped brood left. There was one nice long queen cell that had been chewed out of, though, and I figured that maybe a swarm had already issued, although the population still seemed strong, and that I now had a young virgin queen waiting to mate.! However, I checked again yesterday, a week later, and there are still no new eggs or larvae- or queen cells. I searched and searched and saw nothing resembling a queen, which doesn't mean there isn't one, but there was no other signs of an active queen, as I stated above. I believe I may have killed one or more queens in my bumbling efforts of 'hive inspection'. My question is: Being that it is now the beginning of June in Nebraska (and everywhere else, too, I would imagine) should I requeen with a commercially bred queen, which is what I plan on doing this Fall with both hives, or take a frame of eggs and larvae from the Italian hive and hope that the Carnolian hive will raise a queen from them to get me (them) through the summer until fall requeening. I have heard that our nectar flow starts in mid June. I realize this will give me two Italians hives by the end of summer. Let me state that my number one goal is to just get them through the summer and coming winter and worry about honey next year with a better management plan in force. I'm not worried about having any surplus honey. Also, if I rqueen with a commercial queen now, should I still requeen in the Fall? I'm thinking yes, but what are your experiences? Thanks, Brad --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 14:59:00 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Bee dance analysis Comments: cc: smjc@svrc.uq.edu.au, b.wixted@uws.edu.au, wstansfi@calpoly.edu, Julian.ODea@affa.gov.au, PayneT@missouri.edu, timothy.paine@ucr.edu, phwells@earthlink.net, ckstarr99@hotmail.com, Vredma@PLANT3.AGRIC.ZA, aczarnecka@um.opole.pl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On June 1st, James Fischer responded to my posting of the same day. I will only comment on a few of his points. He wrote: >As for "voting", scientists "vote" all the time, at least on methodology. >Some >call it "peer review". Yes, but favorable peer review (anonymous) is highly skewed to support those who hold similar views to the ones doing the reviewing. That is only human nature! (And often ends up with suppression of scientific progress.) Fischer wrote: >If you say that "waggle dances" with durations of less than a second >exist, I'll openly admit to never noticing them. But let's accept that a >waggle dance IS done for distances that close as a "given", and continue... > >As to "accuracy", if one were to agree with Seeley's statement that each >100 >meters of distance is represented by roughly 75 milliseconds (0.075 >seconds) of >waggle, I think anyone could understand how hard it would be >to accurately >measure the length of a waggle dance when the food source >is only 1000 meters >away. > > 0.075 / 100 * 1000 = 0.75 seconds Seeley seems to be in error, if that reflects his statement. On the website: http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm, Item #4 has a figure on the bottom of page 121 of the publication included therein, one that shows the time spent on the waggle run compared to the distance of a food source, with some examples of sound displays in the figure above that one. Let me provide some background. Back in the 1950s, portable tape recorders had just been invented, as well as sound spectrograph equipment that could display sounds in visual displays. My background in electronics, physics, and mathematics permitted me to use that equipment to tape record sounds of bees in their hives. My background in commercial beekeeping let me essentially "go into" a dark hive and record those sounds. All of that combined is why I was apparently the first one to hear and record the sounds of dancing bees (as initially published in 1959). Whereas a stopwatch will not provide accuracy, a tape recording and analysis of the sounds can --- as shown in those figures. The figures in that publication, though, are somewhat deceptive, in that they do not display the error, an error that can be obtained by recording dance sounds of several bees that have travelled at each distance. For the original results one can read the following paper: 1962 Wenner, A.M. Sound production during the waggle dance of the honey bee. Animal Behaviour. 10:79-95. Fig 1 therein shows the original results for waggle run time at each distance; Fig. 5b shows the error in waggle run sounds at various distances. In those figures one can see that the waggle run time for 1,000 yards (meters) is just over 1.6 seconds, not the 0.75 second Fischer credited to Seeley. Of course, one will not find bee language advocates referring to the results from our publications. Fischer asked: >(What's a bee's reaction time? Faster than a human's, but what?) No, we don't know answers to those questions. And wrote: >I don't really think it matters if the error is on the part of the bees or >the >grad students doing the measuring. I have been personally involved with all of the results that I have published, having learned in graduate school (while watching other graduate students) that hired assistants can take shortcuts and can also "obtain" results that a major professor wants. ********** All that said, here is another very simple experiment that I cannot get bee language advocates to repeat: Have 10 marked foragers collect scented sucrose solution at a feeding station and continually kill all unmarked bees as they arrive --- by putting them in a jar of alcohol (with a lid) as they arrive. During each 15 minute period during a 3 hour period, keep a tally of the number of arrivals and replace dish and pad with clean ones each such period. On the next day, repeat the same experiment but cut the amount of scent by one-half. On the following day, do it all over but cut the scent by one-half again. On the following day, do the same. On the following day, do the same. etc. To see the sort of results that will emerge, one need only go to the following publication: 1971 Wells, P.H. and A.M. Wenner. The influence of food scent on behavior of foraging honey bees. Physiolgical Zoology. 44:191-209. As an example of what results one can obtain with careful attention to keeping everything very clean and eventually nearly odor-free, I quote here from our 1969 paper in the journal SCIENCE: "On 25 July 1968 ... in the absence of a major nectar source for the colony, we received only 5 recruits from a hive of approximately 60,000 bees after ten bees had foraged at each of four stations for a total of 1374 round trips during a 3-hour period." Will you find any of those results mentioned in publications by bee language proponents? No. But you can find them in our 1990 Columbia University Press book, ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY. The results shown in Table 10.1 in that book reveal very clearly the overwhelming importance of odor in recruitment success, as well as the failure of Nasanov gland exposure to attract recruits. Is it any wonder that I took a "leave of absence" from bee research at that time and spent two productive decades in marine biology studies? And what could I have accomplished in bee research during that time if the peer review system would have permitted me to continue such research? (See next to last item on the website --- LORD OF THE GADFLIES). 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] ******************************************************************** * * "The history of science teaches us that each time we think * that we have it all figured out, nature has a radical surprise * in store for us that requires significant and sometimes drastic * changes in how we think the world works." * * Brian Greene (1999:373) * ******************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:02:20 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lucinda Sewell Subject: "hi-falutin' larnin' " MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Mann states (asks?) > I'm not sure what can be done about the wild biochemistry that >meanders around the beekeeping scene. I believe Bob Harrison was asking for a learned opinion, which you supplied thanks. I often search for current learned opinions on a lot of beekeeping lore. If those of you with the specialised learning keep answering, then the doubtful science will be diluted...Perhaps even dissolved. John Sewell ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 06:54:27 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Mares Subject: drone trapping Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed I did a search of the BEE-L archives on drone trapping and got more confused as I read. Can anyone offer advice on this anti-varroa technique in (to use the the words of the old aspirin commercial)"simple declarative sentences?" Bill Mares/Mares Apiaries 429 South Willard St., Burlington, VT 05401 Phone: 802-863-4938 Fax: 802-864-7982 Bee Happy in your work! _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 07:07:46 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Varroa, open mesh floors and slippery feet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There have been several new methods of varroa control mentioned recently, including powdered sugar, smoke, and FGMO. Each has Varroa drop as a feature of its efficacy. Different smokes appear to both cause Varroa drop as well as Varroa death while the other methods seem mixed. It has been mentioned that the some methods cause the varroa to slip off the bee because of the medium used. That may be true, but it seems to me to not be the probably mechanism. I would postulate- a scientific term for guess- that varroa drop is caused by an inbred survival reaction by the varroa. Sort of on the same order of the reaction by bees to smoke. Varroa are not always loosely attached to the bee, but often wedged in as well as parasitically attached. I question if they would fall off easily because of bad footing. Let's look at the results of sugar dusting. If the dust particle are too large, the dusting is ineffective. But, from what has been posted, atomized FGMO and various smokes cause varroa drop. All are of small particle size. Smoke has nothing to do with varroa feet, but all can get into the mite breathing system. Reduce the size of the sugar particles and it can too. And the results are the same, varroa drop. The reason could be because of a clogged breathing system or some other survival mechanism. All this is leading to the simple conclusion that particle size and its persistence may have as much to do with varroa drop as the material used, including, to an extent, smoke. Have an irritant of the right size and you get Varroa drop. It would be fairly easy to disprove. As far as open mesh floors, if Varroa drop is the result of each, then the cheapest mechanism is smoke injected through the open mesh floor since all the other methods require opening and manipulation of the hive. The only thing you would need is a method to uniformly cover the interior with the proper amount of smoke. But. I see it as an exercise for a hobby beekeeper and not a commercial alternative except as something to be done in conjunction with other methods. It would require too many trips to the apiary and labor is not cheap. I doubt if many commercial beekeepers will shift from simple, effective, and reproducible one treatment chemical methods to the many treatment labor intensive methods required with open mesh floors. The future of Varroa control is still in the bee and the mite. Change either and the problem is solved. SMR, hygienic bees, and maybe even cell size are the true future of varroa control. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:22:59 +0300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Seppo Korpela Organization: MTT Agrifood Research Finland Subject: Re: mineral oil for varroa control In-Reply-To: <200106011604.f51G4eJ06249@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Another by French scientists that showed the method had promise but > compared to other methods they could not recommend it. The third by, if > I recall the country correctly, a researcher in Sweden who treated with > Oxalic acid after treating with FGMO and it showed a remaining high mite > count. You remember the third case quite well, but not exactly. The small experiment was made by me in Finland using the original method of applying FGMO on frame top lists. -------------------------------------- Seppo Korpela Senior Researcher MTT Agrifood Research Finland Plant Protection FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland Phone INT + 358 3 4188 2576 FAX INT + 358 3 4188 2584 E-mail seppo.korpela@mtt.fi http://www.mtt.fi/ktl/ksu/bees/ -------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:04:24 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Julian O'Dea Subject: Re: Bee dance analysis MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dance language enthusiasts have published a "Letter to Nature" - "Honeybee dances communicate distances measured by optic flow", Esch et al. Nature, vol. 411, 581-3, 31 May 2001 - which lacks controls and statistical treatment. I have attached a copy of the abstract of the paper below. If one reads the paper carefully, a couple of points emerge. One is that the researchers have used an unexpected result (that in the experiment done in the northwestern direction), not to question the whole von Frisch hypothesis, but to support their NEW version of the hypothesis. They are claiming that "optic flow" is the important feature of a bee's trip, in contrast to earlier claims that energy expended is crucial, and the original claims that distance information is objectively accurate. In short - the hypothesis keeps changing. Their claim that the difference in the waggle duration between the two geographic directions is due to differences in the optic flow is simply asserted. No evidence is provided, other than vague descriptions of the topography. Another point is that the actual results are not that impressive. For example, in the third experiment, as many bees go to one of the "wrong" sites as to the "right" one. It seems a particular weakness to me that there were no control sites in directions other than what the researchers expected. Wenner has noted that bees searching for food fly out of the hive in "ever-increasing spirals". This suggests that they will therefore encounter observation sites set up in ANY direction. Esch et al. remark "Recruits searched for a short time [at the observation sites] and disappeared". I'll bet they did - they were probably just randomly buzzing around! What Esch et al. (2001) represents is another in a long line of inconclusive experiments designed to prove that honeybees have a language. There are possible explanations for the evolution of the honeybee dance that do not involve directional and distance communication. I have given one at: http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-13/ns_jdo.html No doubt there are others. Julian O'Dea Canberra, Australia ------------------------------------------------------------------ Honeybee dances communicate distances measured by optic Øow Harald E. Esch*, Shaowu Zhang², Mandyan V. Srinivasan² & Juergen Tautz³ * Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA ² Centre for Visual Science, Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia ³ Biozentrum Universita»t Wu»rzburg, Am Hubland, D-97074 Wu»rzburg, Germany .............. In honeybees, employed foragers recruit unemployed hive mates to food sources by dances from which a human observer can read the distance and direction of the food source1. When foragers collect food in a short, narrow tunnel, they dance as if the food source were much farther away. Dancers gauge distance by retinal image flow on the way to their destination. Their visually driven odometer misreads distance because the close tunnel walls increase optic flow. We examined how hive mates interpret these dances. Here we show that recruited bees search outside in the direction of the tunnel at exaggerated distances and not inside the tunnel where the foragers come from. Thus, dances must convey information about the direction of the food source and the total amount of image motion en route to the food source, but they do not convey information about absolute distances.We also found that perceived distances on various outdoor routes from the same hive could be considerably different. Navigational errors are avoided as recruits and dancers tend to fly in the same direction. Reported racial differences in honeybee dances could have arisen merely from differences in the environments in which these bees flew. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:13:40 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Rodney Farrar Subject: Supers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have two hives that seem to have started very slow, what is the lasted date to put a super on? Rodney in VA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 13:49:08 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Russian Carniolan MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello George & All, > Noting your comment to Allen and Aaron regarding SMR, I have to comment. Allen & Aaron cought me off gaurd with the letters SMR. I said to beware last January. After careful research I realized our researchers had put a name on a phenomenon which many had observed for many years. The idea is bees bred from bees with 100% varroa non-reproduction in worker brood. I personally have never seen a hive or strain of A. meliferia with 100% non varroa reproduction in worker brood but many researchers report the SMR phenomenon. . Many of our noted researchers have told me such strains exist. I believe the SMR queens are the product of Glenn Apiaries in Falbrook, Ca. I intend to find out if the SMR do as advertised. More important the daughters do as advrtised. > The "Russian" bee IS A CARNIOLAN, and A.I. has been demonstrated > by famous scientists as the way to go to maintain the good points of a > particular race or strain. Carniolans are becoming more popular now that beekeepers are learning they need to be worked in a different way than Italians do. > Sorry about you hernia. Compared to what you have been through and have to live with my problem is like a stubbed toe. I have had a few grins with my hernia. Friday a storm blew my tall hive over outside my front door. There was a steady stream of people knocking on my door yesterday to tell me my tall hive had fallen over. If there is no other storm damage my hive may be pictured on the front page of the local newspaper! Can't you see the headlines: "Storm blows grouchy old beekeepers hive over!" I tried to bribe *old farmers* to *teenagers* with honey,money or hive products to take my suit and set the hive back up. Not one taker! One teenager said: "Look Mister I only stopped to tell you about your hive not to correct the situation". Actually I don't worry about a strong hive being laid on its side. I went out and looked and the hive is intact complete up to the queen excluder. Bees were flying out through the spaces in the excluder creating a unusual sight. I have had hives knocked off skids by cattle lay on the ground for two weeks without problems. As long as the rain can't enter the hive I see no problem. I am sure I have spent more time thinking about the hive laying over than the bees ever have. Bob Ps. One has to ponder the thought *Dennis the Mennis* next door could be involved . ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:17:12 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: You Heard it Here First MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I see Dr. Rodriguez is making quite a splash worldwide. I remember when he first announced -- with some excitement -- here on BEE-L that he was working on an earth-shattering cure for varroa. Since then he has been working away at this project and has apparently found an appreciative audience in Europe and South America. This appeared on the francophone Belgian bee list and I'll give a quick paraphrase at the end: > Aujourd´hui dans l´Espagne on employ l´huile mineral pour combatre la > varroa. la methode a eté mis en place par un apiculteur americaine qui > vive un mois en Espagne et un mois en Amerique . > il s´agit de l´employ de vaseline vapirissé et de vaselina dans des cordes > qu´on place sur les cadres, les abeilles en netoyant les ruches sont > couberts par la vaseline ce qui fait obstruire les espiracules du varroa > ,provocant la mort pour axfisie. > si vuos etèz interesés a ce methode je peu vous envoyer l´adress d´internet > en englais ou en Español pour conaitre la maniere d´actuer et l´adresse du > doctor veterinaire Pedro Pablo Rodriguez qui a mis au point la methode. > l´huile mineral est du tipe alimentaire e medicinel ce qui ne laisse de > residues dans le miel. > je vous demande d´escuses pour mon mauvais francais > Au Bientot. > Agustin Arias Martinez > Aula Apicola Municipal > Azuqueca de Henares > Guadalajara- España "Today in Spain they use mineral oil to combat varroa. The method was put in place by an American beekeeper who lives one month in Spain and one month in America. "Apparently he uses minearal oil vaporized and some oil on cords one places on the frames. The bees, in cleaning the hive, are covered with the oil which obstructs the spiracles of the varroa and causes death by asphixiation. "If you are interested in this method, I am able to send you the internet address of the veterinarian doctor in English or in Spanish of Dr. Pedro Pablo Rodriguez who has developed this method. Mineral oil is a medicinal food ingredient that does not leave a residue in honey. etc.... allen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:36:26 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Dr. Pedro P Rodriguez" Subject: Re: How to Requeen now? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Brad. You may have killed your "original queen" with your over zealous inspections. If you did, the likelihood is that you now have a "new" queen in your hive. Give it time to mate and to develop her ovaries. Also, when your bees start to bring in fresh nectar, if you have a mated queen, she'll start to lay. Giving that hive a frame with one day old eggs will ensure a replacement queen for you if in fact there is no queen in there now, and you will have not done any harm. If there is a queen, nothing will happen. Please make sure that you smoke that brood frame well before you insert it into the new hive to dilute the pheromones of the queen from which you are removing it. Just a good precaution. Good luck and best regards. Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:14:21 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Dr. Pedro P Rodriguez" Subject: Re: Varroa, open mesh floors and slippery feet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good morning to all. Bill Truesdell wrote: It seems like such a waste to spend time answering to "supposed; imaginary arguments against FGMO. However, because these comments are capable of deterring beekeepers from even trying out the use of FGMO, one feels that there is a need to clarify each new "guess" proposed on this thread. > > There have been several new methods of varroa control mentioned > recently, including powdered sugar, smoke, and FGMO. Answer. Wrong Mr. Trusdell. FGMO has been in the books since 1994. Not new at all. Each has Varroa drop as a feature of its efficacy. Different smokes appear to both cause Varroa drop as well as Varroa death while the other methods seem mixed. Answer. There is nothing mixed about FGMO. Nothing else is used in addition to FGMO. The findings reported are truly due to the effects of FGMO. > It has been mentioned that the some methods cause the varroa to slip off > the bee because of the medium used. That may be true, but it seems to me > to not be the probably mechanism. I would postulate- a scientific term > for guess- that varroa drop is caused by an inbred survival reaction by > the varroa. Sort of on the same order of the reaction by bees to smoke. Answer. Yes, you are guessing again. I have not yet read of any one who has conducted research on the reaction of varroa mites to smoke. I discontinued the use of tobacco smoke at the very beginning of my varroa studies because I did not wish to introduce variables that might interfere with the action of FGMO. After tobacco smoke was stopped, FGMO continued to produce the same effects. Have you tested your "postulate" on your own hives? > > Varroa are not always loosely attached to the bee, but often wedged in > as well as parasitically attached. I question if they would fall off > easily because of bad footing. Answer. I would like to suggest that you do some reading about the anatomy of honey bee mites, especially that of their appendages. FGMO treatments actually produce a delicate film of oil on the bees surface that actually interferes with the ability of the mites to adhere to the honey bee body surface. Mites do have to cling to their hosts with their legs in order to drive their mouth parts into the "flesh" of the bees. And yes, mites do have specialized parts on their legs that enable them to adhere to their hosts. > > Let's look at the results of sugar dusting. If the dust particle are too > large, the dusting is ineffective. But, from what has been posted, > atomized FGMO and various smokes cause varroa drop. All are of small > particle size. Smoke has nothing to do with varroa feet, but all can get > into the mite breathing system. Reduce the size of the sugar particles > and it can too. And the results are the same, varroa drop. The reason > could be because of a clogged breathing system or some other survival > mechanism. Answer. There is no doubt about the mechanism of action of FGMO. The Burgess Propane Insect Fogger being used for this purpose (since the inception of FGMO) does reduce the FGMO particles to 15 microns, a size that does penetrate the breathing mechanism of honey bee mites, effectively clogging their respiratory system. Bibliography and other pertinent data supporting this subject has been posted on Bee-L and beesource.com for many years > > All this is leading to the simple conclusion that particle size and its > persistence may have as much to do with varroa drop as the material > used, including, to an extent, smoke. Have an irritant of the right size > and you get Varroa drop. It would be fairly easy to disprove. Answer. Caution Mr. Trusdell. You have been constantly voicing your opinions about "theories." Do you know, have, references as to research performed with smoke as a method to "get varroa dropped?" FGMO mist as produced by the Burgess Propane Insect Fogger IS NOT SMOKE. It is pure mineral oil broken down to 15 micron sized particles. Does FGMO "irritate" mites? Perhaps, but the mechanism of action is physiological. It blocks the breathing mechanism of the mites resulting in their asphyxia. If it does irritate the mites causing them to drop off, much better for the mechanism of action of FGMO. I am afraid that I have not had the need to equate that parameter. I am satisfied that the mites die due an effective blocking of their respiratory system as demonstrated in vitro during my original studies and as posted on Bee-L and beesource.com six years ago. > > As far as open mesh floors, if Varroa drop is the result of each, then > the cheapest mechanism is smoke injected through the open mesh floor > since all the other methods require opening and manipulation of the > hive. The only thing you would need is a method to uniformly cover the > interior with the proper amount of smoke. > Answer. Application of FGMO mist does not require manipulation of the hive at all. It is applied directly into the hive via the entrance. However, since varroa mites are being born daily, technically, one needs "continuous" means of treatment other than smoke, hence FGMO emulsion soaked cords placed on top of your brood chamber frames (or for the same reason, the application of other miticides in use these days that require constant presence in the hive environment. > But. I see it as an exercise for a hobby beekeeper and not a commercial > alternative except as something to be done in conjunction with other > methods. It would require too many trips to the apiary and labor is not > cheap. Answer. Please let me suggest that you read the work done by researcher Angel Zola, reported Espacio Apicola. Mr. Zola is using nothing but FGMO in more than 5000 hives. I listed this and other references in beesource.com several months ago. I believe that they are still there for anyone to read. If not try, www.Espacio Apicola.com.ar The future of Varroa control is still in the bee and the mite. Change > either and the problem is solved. SMR, hygienic bees, and maybe even > cell size are the true future of varroa control. Answer. Yes, I am inclined to agree with you on this generalization. But, in the meantime, are you recommending that beekeepers do nothing while they watch their hives demise. paying high prices for toxic chemicals that may not work at all? Best regards. Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:45:02 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ben hanson Subject: Re: Russian Carniolans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all, Just a quick comment or two on my impressions of the Russian bees. I purchased a queen last year for my backyard hive, and developed quickly a couple of opinions. First, I have not seen any evidence of Varroa in this hive. However, I lost them at the onset of winter, probably to tracheal mites, which I had not treated for. This year, I'm back to the good old Italians. This isn't because of the death of my previous attempt though. I live in a small town residential neighborhood, and the Russian bees could be markedly aggressive towards people in the vicinity. There were always a couple of guards that would fly out and repetively bounce off of peoples' heads and shoulders giving warnings. I was not stung any more while working the bees than I have been with any other variety, although I felt they were more wary and a larger quantity of bees would fly around and for longer times than I have seen previously. So this year I chose behavior over disease resistance due to my location, and I have Italian bees behaving as I am accustomed to. Just a single annectdote, not even evidence perhaps, but now I've put in my two cents worth Ben Hanson ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:57:25 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Dr. Pedro P Rodriguez" Subject: Re: mineral oil for varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi. I think that one of the difficulties in getting people to "know" more about FGMO results is that not all take the time to read up on the most recent findings on FGMO. Updates are being constantly posted on web sites as beesource.com and other links as listed by Dick Allen. There is much improvement in FGMO application methods that has been achieved recently and it is worth while checking it out as posted on those links. Best regards. Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:47:24 -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: mineral oil for varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Seppo Korpela wrote: > You remember the third case quite well, but not exactly. The small experiment was > made by me in Finland using the original method of applying FGMO on frame top > lists. Thanks, Seppo. After I posted the message I retrieved your message, both the one you posted to the list plus the one that you sent me which had the data. Just to refresh the memories of those who may not remember the exchange, I requested independent verification of FGMO tests. Seppo had run them and they showed about the same mite drop from FGMO that would have been expected from mite drop without FGMO. The mites were not affected by FGMO. The results were counter to that published by proponents of FGMO at the time. The application method has changed several times since then. Since the proponent's data was not supported by independent research then, I am only asking for independent data for whatever the newest application methods might be, just as I did before. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:18:40 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Varroa, open mesh floors and slippery feet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Dr. Pedro P Rodriguez" wrote: > It seems like such a waste to spend time answering to "supposed; > imaginary > arguments against FGMO. However, because these comments are capable of > deterring beekeepers from even trying out the use of FGMO, one feels > that there is a need to clarify each new "guess" proposed on this > thread. Actually, I was, early in the morning, trying to make some sense in what was happening to the Varroa when particles were introduced into the hive. I appreciate your comments, and, as I said, it was my guesses. There are many articles on smoke as a mite dropper. I just learned the latest research indicates that it may be the residue of the smoke that caused varroa drop. http://www.nalusda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000011/09/0000110950.html I went to the site http://www.apicultura.com.ar/ to find the information on FGMO, but need the issue that the articles are in. I would appreciate it if you can provide it. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:57:39 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Al Lipscomb Subject: Re: Varroa, open mesh floors and slippery feet In-Reply-To: <200106041915.f54JFHP21366@listserv.albany.edu>; from dronebee@PILOT.INFI.NET on Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 09:14:21AM -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Answer. > Yes, I am inclined to agree with you on this generalization. > But, in the meantime, are you recommending that beekeepers do > nothing while they watch their hives demise. paying high prices for > toxic chemicals that > may not work at all? > For many of us the hope of a non-toxic treatment for Varroa mites is still alive and well. I have been following the FGMO debate here on BEE-L and hope that one day a prescription as concise and affordable as the recently posted powdered sugar method arrives. Until then I will continue to pay high prices for "toxic chemicals". My hives are not in a state of demise so I am not in any rush to add any new substance to my hives. Were it not for the arival of SHB in my area my treatments would be restricted to Apistan about every 18 months. Now I am using Cumaphose as needed to deal with the SHB and giving Apistan a rest. I still have my supply of FGMO waiting for a good application. I even have an idea on using it in a rather novel trap for SHB. Lets hope that a simple solution can be found. -- | There is no doubt we need government in our lives. There is also no doubt that we need salt in our diet. Watch out for too much of either one. AA4YU http://www.beekeeper.org http://www.q7.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:13:26 EDT 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: Supers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rod, You don't super bees by a calendar. You put a super in place just before the start of a nectar flow your locale, and you add another when the first is more than half full. Some areas of the country have a fine Goldenrod nectar flow, and they might add a super in late September. Since you are new, ask other beekeepers in your area just what nectar resources do you have and when do they bloom normally. You are in Virginia. Surely, the nectar flows in Winchester are dramatically different from those in Norfolk, and Bristol would be different from both Norfolk or Winchester. Hope I have helped. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:34:47 EDT 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: drone trapping MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill, In simple ASPIRIN statements: Drone brood trapping is a part of the new IPM theory. Because the gestation time for a drone is 24 days, 3 days longer than worker brood gestation, it would appear that the female mite prefers to lay her mite eggs with drone larva rather than worker larva, hence providing more food for her mite progeny as well as perhaps more mites per bee cell than a worker bee cell. Hence, by entering one frame of drone size foundation into a brood nest and removing it BEFORE the drones emerge would badly deplete the Varroa population of a colony. Is that "declared simply" enough? George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:12:04 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Drone Trapping MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill Mares asked: > I did a search of the BEE-L archives on drone trapping and got more confused > as I read. Can anyone offer advice on this anti-varroa technique in (to use > the words of the old aspirin commercial)"simple declarative sentences?" Sure... looks like I am stuck here at O'Hare until they find some duct tape to re-attach the left wing to the plane. (Fair warning - the Delta Crown Room stocks Glenfiddich, so I'm not sure how clear my thinking is after 4 single-malts...) 1) Get some "drone-sized foundation". Many bee suppliers sell it. 2) Make up frames in the same size as your brood chamber to hold the drone foundation. Some might want to have two drone frames per hive (see below for why). 2a) You will have to wire the foundation into the frame, as drone foundation comes as plain wax, no wires built in. (Don't know how? Ask an old beekeeper to show you.) 2b) Write "DRONE" in big fat black letters across the top bar with a permanent marker, so you can find it with ease, and mark an indicator of the hive to which the frame "belongs". 3) Put it in your brood hive, but wait until a flow is on so that the bees will draw the foundation out. Certainly do NOT do this in the early spring build-up period. 3a) Do not break up the existing brood area. Replace a frame without eggs or brood. For best success, place it near frames with eggs. Mark the frame you remove so you will know which hive it came from. 3b) Perhaps remove the foundation once it is drawn out, and save it for use in July and August (see below for rationale...) 3c) Or simply leave it in place if you feel that your varroa situation is dire. (See "sticky board", "sugar roll", "ether roll", and "alcohol roll", in this group's archives) 4) Once the frame is drawn out, wait a bit for the queen to lay eggs in the drone foundation, and for those cells to be capped over. You want to remove it before the FIRST drone eggs that were laid will hatch, so the frame will likely not be 100% capped-over when you remove it. 5) Remove the frame. Shake/brush off any bees. Replace the frame with another drone frame, or a the regular brood frame you removed in (3) above, or leave an empty space, depending upon the bees' ability to draw comb. Bag the drone frame in a double zip-lock bag. (I use large anti-static zip-lock bags that computer companies use to protect circuit boards, but you can use whatever. Plastic trash bags and twist-ties work OK, too.) 6) Place the bagged frame in your freezer for at least 48 hours. (Consensus here? How long to assure a "kill"? Could 24 hours be enough?) 6a) Now you understand the need for the double-bagging. Think of it as marriage insurance. 7) Once you have killed the drone brood, replace the frame in the SAME hive you took it from. 7a) The bees will soon clean the frame, and prove that they are bees worthy of the name "hygienic". If they don't do this quickly enough, seriously consider requeening. (Again, consensus please? What is a worst-case time for an average hive to clean up one side of a deep frame? A medium frame?) 8) Lather, rise, repeat. 9) There is no step 9. Now, a few qualifications and clarifications to the above: a) Unless you are sure to check early enough to remove the drone frame before the cells hatch, you may be BREEDING additional varroa. This is not something to forget about!!!! b) All this checking is invasive and disruptive to the hive, so one might not want to do this during your best nectar flows. c) Varroa population levels are said by many to be low in the spring, getting higher as summer goes on, so perhaps this is a good thing to do "between flows", or at least not during your "best" nectar event, which is most often spring. d) This approach reduces the worker brood area by 1/nth, where "n" is the number of frames in the brood area. Clearly, people who use multiple mediums ("Illinois") as brood chambers are at an advantage here, since they are reducing total worker brood area by 1/30th in a 3-medium brood stack, rather than 1/20th in a dual "deep" stack, or 1/10th in a single deep hive body. e) Why all the frame marking? Well, it would not be much help if you did not keep track of frames, and spread a case of foulbrood in your attempt to control varroa, would it? Permanent magic marker is on my first line of defense against foulbrood, right up there with a small squeeze bottle of alcohol to clean the hive tool between hives. f) How does it work? Well, the varroa are in the sealed cells with some number of drone brood. The assumption is that there will be more varroa that crawl into drone brood cells than worker brood cells. When you freeze the drone brood, you kill both the drone brood and the varroa, taking out a significant number of the next generation of varroa. jim Farmaggedon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:37:50 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jim Stein Subject: Re: Supers In-Reply-To: <200106042319.f54NJLP29886@listserv.albany.edu> In <200106042319.f54NJLP29886@listserv.albany.edu>, on 06/04/01 at 10:37 PM, GImasterBK@AOL.COM said: >Rod, >You don't super bees by a calendar. You put a super in place just before >the start of a nectar flow your locale, and you add another when the >first is more than half full. George, in your "Pink Pages" you suggest putting more than one super on at the beginning of the Spring nectar flow. Why do you suggest as above to add supers one at a time? >From the "Pink Pages": "However, a major nectar flow can start as early as April 1 5th here near the nation's capitol of Washington DC, and surely by May 1st. Supers of drawn comb have little or no value sitting in your garage or basement, so add 4 supers of drawn comb to that one super on the bees on INCOME TAX DAY, April 15th; and don't forget some entrances in the super area, either Imirie shims or holes in the supers, and an upper entrance. This will keep the forager bees from "drudging back and forth" through the brood chamber and creating MORE congestion than already exists there. I have been asked "where" I put Imirie Shims: On top of the queen excluder are two supers, then a shim, another 2 supers and then a second shim, then the 5th super topped with an upper entrance cut in the inner cover." "Lastly, for those that still don't understand " WHY,5 SUPERS?" Nectar is thin and about 80% water, but there has to be a lot of storage space to hold all this nectar until the bees can ripen it into thick honey that is only about 16-18% water. If there is not enough super space to store all this thin watery nectar, the bees will stop gathering nectar and prepare to swarm. If your colony swarms during a major nectar flow, it was not a bad queen or crazy bees, it was I 00% YOUR FAULT, because you did not provide enough super space AHEAD OF TIME." -- ----------------------------------------------------------- jstein@worldnet.att.net ----------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:08:53 +0300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ainars Millers Subject: splits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-4" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am planning to make splits. To keep the flying bees, splits should be taken away at least 6 km. Question- when can I bring these splits back? Will the old flying bees loose their memory for old hives? With best regards from Latvia Ainars ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 18:22:13 -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: Varroa, open mesh floors and slippery feet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Al & All, >I even have an idea on using it in a rather novel trap for SHB (FGMO). Lets hope that a simple solution can be found. Al, I think you know I have been working on a SHB trap. Is your trap for honey house, apiary or hive? If (in the future) I mailed you a trap of my design for the honey house would you give it a try? Others? Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri Ps. only drawings in a notebook right now. I would be thankful for any SHB trap ideas sent to me. "Small Hive Beetle coming to a hive near you in the future!" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 22:28:13 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: mechanism not reqd Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" One fallacy surprisingly widespread is that if no mechanism is suggested for a phenomenon then the alleged process cannot occur. This error of reasoning has been evident on this list wo some alleged varroacides. Ask yourself: can mammals be put into a temporary deep sleep so that drastic surgery becomes painless? I know they can, because it's been done on me several times; and those who have had no such experience will, I trust, concede there exist genuine general anaesthetics. These chemicals got allowed in medicine because they did work (and no side-effects had been noticed), when nobody had any idea HOW they worked. My scientific hero Linus Pauling made some shrewd but very vague suggestions a few decades ago; but it was still the case when I was a medical-school teacher that no mechanism was suggested for general anaesthesia. But nobody was suggesting anaesthetics should be banned because we didn't know how they worked. Similarly, the question of whether varroa gets hammered by sugar rolls, jelly rolls, oil foggers, vinegar foggers, a suspiciously low-volatility organic acid, even less volatile salts, fluorinated synthetic pesticides, or other treatment, is a question for empirical testing, quite aside from whether any mechanism has been proposed. I deplore the failure of those milking the public purse on the basis of the varroa invasion to initiate the urgent efficacy testing deserved by some of these methods; but the lack of knowledge on how they might work is not one of my reasons. True, it is comforting to have a mechanism in mind. Research is liable to be more efficient if on some theoretical framework. But it is not essential. People should stop saying 'you dunno how it works so you can't claim that it does work'. (I am well aware that this reasoning applies also to alleged phenomena such as telepathy. That is fine by me.) While I'm holding forth on scientific method, let me add that the functions of the drones in the hive are so very little known that drastic interference with their numbers is in my opinion unjustified. Sacrificing any large minority of drones as a kind of varroa sink looks to me dubious. R - Robt Mann consultant ecologist P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 07:23:24 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Varroa, open mesh floors and slippery feet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit An interesting article on the use of vegetable oil to control varroa. http://www.biavl.dk/english/vid-1.htm Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 07:54:42 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: huestis Subject: Re: splits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I usually wait two weeks but 10 days probably would work if in a hurry. Some bees may remeber old colony but I doubt most will. Best to just bring bees from one yard to another. I realize this isn't alwasys possible. Good luck. Clay ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:50:38 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Al Lipscomb Subject: Re: Supers In-Reply-To: <200106050446.f554kDP08323@listserv.albany.edu>; from jstein@WORLDNET.ATT.NET on Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 10:37:50PM -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 10:37:50PM -0400, Jim Stein wrote: > In <200106042319.f54NJLP29886@listserv.albany.edu>, on 06/04/01 > at 10:37 PM, GImasterBK@AOL.COM said: > > >Rod, > >You don't super bees by a calendar. You put a super in place just before > >the start of a nectar flow your locale, and you add another when the > >first is more than half full. > > George, in your "Pink Pages" you suggest putting more than one super on at > the beginning of the Spring nectar flow. Why do you suggest as above to > add supers one at a time? > Not wanting to speak for George, but I would think that since this is a new beekeeper we would be suggesting putting on supers containing foundation, not drawn comb. -- | There is no doubt we need government in our lives. There is also no doubt that we need salt in our diet. Watch out for too much of either one. AA4YU http://www.beekeeper.org http://www.q7.net ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:39:51 -0400 Reply-To: bees@oldmoose.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Glen Glater Subject: How to deal with complaining neighbors MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I had a swarm yesterday and a neighbor unhappy that they chose her tree to sit in while the scouts did their work. Aside from gifting honey, how do you handle these things? In the 8 years that I've had hives, this is the first time they chose her yard, yet she felt it was OK to come over to my house at 9 PM to tell me that I'm "upsetting the neighbors" by keeping bees on my property. Also, she seems blind (deaf?) to the incessant barking of her 2 dogs. So, since there is a legal reason for her dogs to not bark (disturbing the peace) and there is no legal reason that bees can't be kept, I feel that I have the upper hand, but I'd rather not go down that road (of course I have no problems mixing my metaphors...) Thanks. Reply directly to me at mailto:bees@oldmoose.com . --glen ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:48:47 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Drone Trapping and small cells Comments: To: huestis MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Clay said: > Why not try the opposite of this. Why not try small cell foundation? > Dadant sells this right next to the drone foundation... The gentleman did not ask for opinions on WHAT to do, he asked tips on HOW to do something. I have read that a number of people have seen encouraging short-term results from the smaller worker-cell size, but I myself have not yet tried this, so I cannot offer an opinion. Regardless, I'm not going to argue. I'm going to try to answer the question asked. jim Farmageddon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:00:44 -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: How to deal with complaining neighbors Comments: cc: "bees@OLDMOOSE.COM" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > So, since there is a legal reason for her dogs to not bark (disturbing > the peace) and there is no legal reason that bees can't be kept, I feel > that I have the upper hand, but I'd rather not go down that road (of > course I have no problems mixing my metaphors...) Glen, First, lose the attitude. If you approach the situation thinking you have the upper hand you may end up quite surprised. Her barking dogs and your bees have nothing to do with each other. If you're out to deal with barking dogs you might have success in having whatever laws exist to deal with them (disturbing the peace) enforced, but you will also get her upset and determined to have whatever laws may exist in your community to deal with keeping bees enforced. No laws about keeping bees? Are you sure? Are there any caveats that may apply anywhere in any laws that may be contrary to your interpretations? I'm currently involved in protracted litigation in a community that "Encourages agricultural persuits (apiculture named specificly)", but got snagged on a technicality that states agricultural persuits require acerage I do not own. And agricultural persuits aside, I'm being hung from a different tree based on running a commercial business in a residential zone. Next scheduled court appearance is June 13. There's more than one way for an irate neighbor to hang a beekeeper. Don't go the confrontational route, you'll lose. It's nearly impossible to find a sympathetic ear when it comes to honeybees. You can thank Norm Gary for that. So, try the honey. Try education. Grovel. And be ready to move your bees. Aaron Morris - thinking the real bug problems are the bugs up the neighbors ash! You did say it was an ash tree, no? Thanks. Reply directly to me at mailto:bees@oldmoose.com . --glen ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:12:30 -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: drone trapping and mechanism not reqd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > Similarly, the question of whether varroa gets hammered by sugar > rolls, jelly rolls, oil foggers, vinegar foggers, a suspiciously > low-volatility organic acid, even less volatile salts, fluorinated > synthetic pesticides, or other treatment, is a question for empirical > testing, quite aside from whether any mechanism has been proposed. That's quite a list! And it doesn't include any of the SANCTIONED treatments (two in my country, more in others). Seems the only thing missing is the kitchen sink! Sobering when presented so succinctly. Thanks Robert! > People should stop saying 'you dunno how it works so you > can't claim that it does work'. In most cases the call for proof has been for empirical evidence that a treatment (regardless of its mechanism) is effective. AND that the empirical evidence be gathered against experimental controls and the data collection be consistently repeatable. Admittedly the requests for that proof have been cloaked in a lot of emotive authoring and response. Would there were more of the former (empirical evidence) and less of the latter (emotion), but we're only human. > While I'm holding forth on scientific method, let me add that the > functions of the drones in the hive are so very little known that drastic > interference with their numbers is in my opinion unjustified. Sacrificing > any large minority of drones as a kind of varroa sink looks to me dubious. I heard Thomas Seeley speak in March of this year, the title of his presentation was "Drones, Good for the bees or good for the beekeeper?" The answer to his question was, "Yes". During drone season (the time of year when virgin queens are in want of nuptual flights), bees want to be raising drones. This "want" is based on experiments done in summertime (drone season) where hives were continuously denied drone brood (any and all drone brood was removed from the hive). Hives thus denied shifted into a drone production mode, the more they were denied the more they attempted to thwart the denial. The less drones they had, the more they tried to raise more drones! Complete drone denial demoralized the hive (an anthropomorphic interpretation of the behavior the bees displayed). The conclusion was that drones were good for the bees, but not without a price. Hives that were seeded with drones (using drone foundation) produced significantly less honey than control hives (hives neither denied drone production OR seeded with drone foundation). The price the "drone empowered" hives paid was the price of rearing and fueling all those stud muffins. It takes a lot of pollen to raise 'em and a lot of honey to keep 'em flyin'. The price the hive pay fors morale is balanced by the resources it takes for the morale boosters. Enter drone trapping. Studies yet unpublished (at least the ones I'm thinking of) will show that drone trapping is an effective means to keep Varroa populations in check. When trapping drones, not all of the developing drones are removed from the hive, some remain. It appears (and is speculated) that drone trapping gives the best of both worlds. Hives aren't totally denied their drones (hence bees get what they want), Varroa populations are kept in check (hence the beekeeper gets what (s)he wants, and the bees expend some resources raising the drones but don't expend as many resources keeping the drones flying (a good compromise). These speculative conclusions have yet to be verified empirically, but expectations are that drones can be good both for the bees and the beekeepers! Aaron Morris - thinking you CAN have it both ways! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:28:06 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: huestis Subject: Re: Supers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, > George, in your "Pink Pages" you suggest putting more than one super on at > the beginning of the Spring nectar flow. Why do you suggest as above to > add supers one at a time? Using foundation I assume, instead of drawn comb. Clay ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:24:33 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: huestis Subject: Re: Drone Trapping and small cells Comments: To: jfischer@supercollider.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi James, Why not try the opposite of this. Why not try small cell foundation? Dadant sells this right next to the drone foundation. You don't have to remove this from the hive. But you need to replace all combs in brood nest. If you forget to remove drone comb you have made varroa populations increase rather than decrease. Why not control varroa by giving them no where to breed (except drone comb with is the size of the worker comb you are now using). Drone comb must be limited in these small cell colonies to no more than 10% drone cells per frame. No chemicals will be needed in these colonies as mite populations are naturally supressed. The criticism of this method is that few have tested it(scientists). Yet independent beekeepers are finding it to work. Clay ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 07:19:31 -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: Drone Trapping MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > 1) Get some "drone-sized foundation". Many bee suppliers > sell it. > > 2) Make up frames in the same size as your brood chamber > to hold the drone foundation. Some might want to have > two drone frames per hive (see below for why). > > 2a) You will have to wire the foundation into the frame, > as drone foundation comes as plain wax, no wires > built in. (Don't know how? Ask an old beekeeper > to show you.) An alternative to assembling a frame with the drone foundation and wiring is simply to insert a shallow frame in a deep hive body. The bees will draw drone comb in the vacant space. When drawn and filled with capped drone brood, rather than freezing, the sealed drone brood can be cut off the bottom of the shallow frame. Be sure to remove the cut off brood from the bee yard. Then just put the shallow frame back to repeat the cycle. Pros: Less labor intensive (removes freezing step). Assuming one has shallow frames on hand, there is no building and wiring new frames. Worker brood in the shallow frame remains in the hive. Cons: Are there any? Aaron Morris - I think, therefore I bee! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:52:28 EDT 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: Drone Trapping MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/5/01 11:29:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, AMorris@UAMAIL.ALBANY.EDU writes: > Cons: Are there any? Only when you forget the shallows. I use this method- a shallow in a deep, to obtain a small portion of comb honey. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:00:22 -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: splits In-Reply-To: <200106050815.f558FLP11412@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I am planning to make splits. To keep the flying bees, splits should be > taken away at least 6 km. > Question- when can I bring these splits back? Will the old flying bees loose > their memory for old hives? The topic is much more complex than it might appear on the surface. There is a wealth of discussion on this topic in the archives, although it might not be too easy to find in a search. I have written extensively about this here and on my web site (below) under the topic of Spring Management, but will summarise a bit here: I notice the assumption that the splits must be taken away. This is definitely not necessary, but -- depending on your circumstances and time of year -- the best solution may vary. * If the bees are not flying (no flow, cool weather for days), then moving is not necessary. The bees will orient when they first fly. * Or if they are flying the two splits can be put close together side-by-side on the old site and the bees will divide between them. If one is getting too many flying bees, a little moving of the hives will result in the desired split. * Or, under any conditions, the splits can be put in a *totally* dark basement or garage for two or three days then placed anywhere you like. There are many more clever ways to do these things, but so little time... allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 17:59:26 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Computer Software Solutions Ltd Subject: FGMO Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hello All I would like to address the following to Dr Rodriguez, and would be glad of comments from the list on Open Mesh Floors. We corresponded in the past regarding FGMO. Would it be possible for you to send me the latest procedures for using FGMO - do you have them on a website? I would also be very interested in your views on Open Mesh Floors. I have heard stories about them causing up to 15% mite loss from a hive, since the mites which fall accidentally from a bee cannot reattach themselves as they could with solid floors. If this be true and you have an FGMO approach which by itself can handle the mite, then that is good news indeed. I look forward to replies. Sincerely Tom Barrett Dublin Ireland ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:00:11 EDT 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: splits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Keep the splits away for 30 days. That will allow time for the old forager age bees to die off, and then you can bring the splits back "home". I hope I have helped. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:56:45 EDT 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: Supers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was writing to a brand new beekeeper that has new frames of foundation rather than drawn comb. You CAN NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT install multiple supers of foundation! I hope I have helped. Thanks for writing to me> George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:22:02 EDT 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: Supers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit WOW! I had no idea that so many people paid attention to my "dribble". You are absolutely correct! I was writing to a new beekeeper who only has foundation, and no drawn comb. You can NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT install multiple supers of foundation. You can only do it with DRAWN COMB. For many years, I have admonished my "students" by telling them that DRAWN COMB is a beekeeper's most valuable asset! Thanks for writing! George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 17:34:43 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: ChuckMcC Subject: Bees with Heavy Infestation of Tracheal Mites Needed for Research MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 I am working on a new product to control tracheal mites. I have an = immediate need for some tracheal mite infested bees to do preliminary = testing very soon. If these tests are encouraging, additional testing = will be done this fall/winter. I am willing to pay for the bees and = shipment. Please respond to me privately by email at chuckmcc1@home.com =20 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 17:47:33 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Coleene E. Davidson" Subject: Re: Drone Trapping Comments: To: jfischer@supercollider.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Another way to handle combs of capped drone brood is to place it near suet feeders(if you feed birds and have Woodpeckers visit the feeders). The Woodpeckers feed on the larvae by removing the cap and leaving the comb in tact. It doesn't need to be frozen first. They like their meals warm. Coleene ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:51:17 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: drone trapping and mechanism not reqd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Aaron Morris wrote: > expectations are that drones can be good both for the bees and the > beekeepers! I wish I had more info, but "S. Taber III used to say" that he was surprised to find extremely productive hives in Hawaii in the 1960s with 30% of the population being drones. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:11:38 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dan hendricks Subject: Queenless Behavior MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I had to smile when George Imirie suggested that a virgin queen might be present. Like I didn't know a virgin queen can be very hard to spot. Like the swarm wasn't small and well distributed, making it easy to search for a queen. Like I didn't check several times over several days. I went ahead anyway and put the queenless swarm above newspaper above my hive. After a couple of days, I removed the newspaper and replaced it with a triangle escape board. The next time I went through the hive I removed the inner cover to shake those bees which had not exited and there was a patch of brood, some uncapped, some capped worker brood. I can only hope that not knowing everything can't be equated to not knowing anything. Dan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:48:38 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Dr. Pedro P Rodriguez" Subject: Re: Varroa, open mesh floors and slippery feet Comments: To: Espacio Apicola MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all. Allen and I have listed the sources for articles on FGMO. However, Espacio Apicola No. 47. May 2001 covers pretty much all that has been written about FGMO. The name of the editor of the magazine is Mr. Fernando Esteban and he can be contacted at apicola@apicultura.com.ar Mr. Esteban is so enthusiastic about FGMO that he dedicated one whole issue to FGMO. Mr. Esteban is quite fluent in English so that those wishing to contact him should be able to communicate with him well. Best regards. Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 20:02:00 EDT 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: Queenless Behavior MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Dan, I am glad you found some brood. About this time every year, I am plagued with people reporting exactly what you said in your original message, they spend $10 bucks for a new queen, install her, and she is killed. I wrote about this in the June PINK PAGES which should be published today or tomorrow on either: www.cybertours.com/~midnitebee/ or www.beekeeper.org/george_imirie/index.html I hate getting new queens killed, since sometimes I use very special EXPENSIVE queens I hope you have a fine season! BTW, Thanks for spelling my name right. It is Scottish and sure gets misspelled. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 20:01:50 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Dr. Pedro P Rodriguez" Subject: Re: Varroa, open mesh floors and slippery feet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thousands of beekeepers in two continents are using FGMO in their hives. FGMO has been published in Italian, French, Portuguese and Spanish trade magazines, newspapers, National TV, videos and even one whole chapter of a recently published book exalt the benefits of FGMO use in apiculture. I am confident that it will eventually make similar "appearances" in the English language media. Best regards to all. Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 18:13:57 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Digger Subject: Two brood chambers... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I'm a hobbyist, and fairly new to beekeeping. Two weeks ago I added a second brood chamber to my only hive. This past Saturday I checked things. Comb was being drawn in the added brood chamber, and the queen was up there. There's alot of burr comb between the upper and lower brood chambers. I started to clean it up, but realized I was also destroying eggs, larvae, and brood, so I stopped. Managing the hive kinda requires removing the burr comb, yes? Shall I press on, removing that burr comb, and unhatched bees be damned??? Richard __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jun 0101 04:56:13 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mike Tooley Subject: SMR info Basic info on SMR selection can be found at: This may not be the silver bullet but it sure seems like a step in the right direction. Mike --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using InterStar WebMail ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 06:15:52 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Article on Vermont Bee's Winter survival MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.portland.com/news/state/010605bees.shtml Best quote: In April, Gabriel went out on snowshoes to check on some hives and couldn't locate them -- until he realized he was standing on top of them, and they were buried in six feet of snow. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:52:23 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Dr. Pedro P Rodriguez" Subject: Re: FGMO Comments: To: Espacio Apicola , Agustin Arias , es@mindspring.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Tom and all. I have posted all my findings on beesource.com as I have developed my work. There are some studies made in Argentina (i. e. Angel Zola reports better than average results in 5000 colonies treated) published in the trade magazine Espacio Apicola, however in Spanish. Anyone interested in those articles should write to the editor Mr. Fernando Esteban who I am sure will be glad to oblige. Presently, I am serving as technical advisor to a veterinarian and a beekeeper conducting a very comprehensive FGMO study with a bee yard provided by the municipal government of the City of Azuqueca de Henares, Spain. These investigators expect their project to be ready for publication (in several languages) in July 2001. I will assist/suggest to these investigators to pursue publishing in English as well. Without blowing the essence of their findings, I would like to indicate at this point that their hives do have perforated screens on the bottoms as a means of collecting mites on vaseline coated papers for counting. (The bees can not come in contact with those papers under the screens). Best regards. Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:55:06 -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: Two brood chambers... In-Reply-To: <200106060235.f562ZMP09480@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > There's alot of burr comb between the upper and lower > brood chambers. I started to clean it up, but realized > I was also destroying eggs, larvae, and brood, so I > stopped. Managing the hive kinda requires removing the > burr comb, yes? Why exactly? A lot of people believe that, but I can see you are wondering, when you see that by proceeding you are doing harm and that the benefit is not obvious. Can you do what you want without removing it? My personal philosophy is to disturb the bees as little as possible while accomplishing my goals. If they build things they like, and if I can do what I need to do without removing these structures, I do so. I see no need to impose a human sense of order on them. Such an attempt serves no useful purpose, and wastes the bees time and mine too. It sets us against one another when we should be working together. There are, however, ways to build hives that should minimize such stray combs. Most beekeepers like to have a bee space (3/16" to 3/8") between the supers and between all other moving parts. Usually bees will not gum up spaces that are designed this way, so check and see if your hive is built correctly. If not, some time when it is convenient and not disruptive, you may want to make alterations. There was a good article in Bee Culture recently showing how innocently mixing boxes and parts from different suppliers can result in violation of the bee space principle and a gummed up hive interior. > Shall I press on, removing that burr > comb, and unhatched bees be damned??? Will it result in some real improvement in conditions for you or for the bees or just keep you both busy? allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/ --- There's so much comedy on television. Does that cause comedy in the streets? -- Dick Cavett, mocking the TV-violence debate ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 06:52:33 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "W. Allen Dick" Subject: Re: Chemical to destroy colony MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:31:20 +1200, Robert Mann wrote: >(It should be added that synthetic insecticides based on the molecular >structure of the natural pyrethroids are not necessarily OK. I for one am >suspicious of fluoxetine, the main ingredient of Apistan®, which has 3 >fluorine atoms and one chlorine atom in its molecule.) At the time, this passed without comment, however I was not aware that fluoxetine was a component of Apistan®, being rather AFAIK an antidepressant. See http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/fluoxetine.htm Nonetheless, I have not been easily able to find information on the actual structure of the tau-fluvalinate molecule which is -- AFAI -- the major active ingredient in Apistan®. Has anyone an information as to the actual chemical makeup of Apistan and whether there is there any chlorine or fluorine component to the molecule? If so, what are the implications? allen ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:44:25 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Varroa, open mesh floors and slippery feet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Dr. Pedro P Rodriguez" wrote: > Espacio Apicola No. 47. May 2001 Thank you. No. 47 is not yet out on the website, http://www.apicultura.com.ar/ but should show up shortly. For those interested, a decent translator is at http://world.altavista.com/ Just copy and paste either the webpage address or the text to appropriate box. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:48:58 -0400 Reply-To: Honeybees@inorbit.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Garry Libby Subject: Re: Drone Trapping In-Reply-To: <200106052142.f55LgfP02524@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cambodians and I'm pretty sure Vietnamese will buy drone brood, they fry them up in meals, I'm sure a good price could be obtained. The Cambodians that were going to buy brood from Me worked at a local high tech company that recently had a huge layoff, so I've lost My chance!! Garry Libby Attleboro, Massachusetts, USA 41.56 N 71.17 W LibBEE@email.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 08:10:31 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Timothy C. Eisele" Subject: Re: Chemical to destroy colony In-Reply-To: <200106061151.f56BpdP20989@listserv.albany.edu>; from allend@INTERNODE.NET on Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 06:52:33AM -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 06:52:33AM -0400, W. Allen Dick wrote: > > Has anyone an information as to the actual chemical makeup of Apistan and > whether there is there any chlorine or fluorine component to the molecule? > According to the Merck Index, fluvalinate has the empirical formula: C H ClF N O 26 22 3 2 3 So yes, it contains a small amount of chlorine and fluorine. The structural formula is a bit beyond my ASCII art abilities, but it is essentially two benzene rings connected by a rather messy collection of C,H,O, and N, with one chlorine and a CF3 group hung off of one of the rings. -- Tim Eisele tceisele@mtu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:03:04 -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: Queenless Behavior Comments: cc: "GImasterBK@AOL.COM" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" George Imirie wrote: > About this time every year, I am plagued with people reporting exactly what > you said in your original message, they spend $10 bucks for a new queen, > install her, and she is killed. I set up a queen bank over 4 weeks ago in a small nuc using bees adhering to combs of sealed brood only (or so I thought). Left the bank set up until I used all the queend, the last of which I used to set the queen bank up as a queenright nucleus. I figured with mostly young bees that had hatched from the capped brood that the queen would be readily accepted. A week later, no queen (I mark all my queens) and no eggs. I figured it must have been the banking of all those queens that caused the nuc to reject the new queen. So I tried again. A week later, same thing: no marked queen, no eggs. Figuring the third was the charm I tried one more time. Checked yesterday and the queen was dead in the cage! I knew at that point there must be a queen in that nuc to have them reject 3 attempts, went searching and quickly found a nice, fat, unmarked, laying queen! The thing that's puzzling is the nuc never had eggs in the first place! Yet now they have a queen! I'm guessing there must have been eggs or young larvae in the capped brood frames that I overlooked and the bees raised a queen while I had the bank set up. But then why was my bank successful? Perhaps my timing was lucky in that I used up the queens from the bank before the virgin hatched and mated. It'll be interesting to see how the new queen performs. The moral is, even when you're sure there can be no virgin, check anyway. I didn't, assuming all that could be in that nuc was the banked queens. The 3 week period of egglessness (actually it was 2+ weeks as there were eggs when I searched yesterday) was the time it took the virgin queen to start laying. I never noticed the virgin when checking for the introduced queen because I wasn't looking for one. Never saw a queen cell because I didn't look while the queens were banked. Never saw a hatched cell after the bank was empty, but by that time it may have been torn down. Costly mistakes. Aaron Morris - thinking just check it! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:56:32 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Al Lipscomb Subject: Re: Queenless Behavior In-Reply-To: <200106061316.f56DGQP22772@listserv.albany.edu>; from AMorris@UAMAIL.ALBANY.EDU on Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 07:03:04AM -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > they have a queen! I'm guessing there must have been eggs or young larvae > in the capped brood frames that I overlooked and the bees raised a queen > while > I had the bank set up. But then why was my bank successful? Perhaps my > timing was lucky in that I used up the queens from the bank before the > virgin > hatched and mated. It'll be interesting to see how the new queen performs. > I have often wondered if there are cases of virgin queens drifting while on mating flights. -- | There is no doubt we need government in our lives. There is also no doubt that we need salt in our diet. Watch out for too much of either one. AA4YU http://www.beekeeper.org http://www.q7.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:02:33 -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: Chemical to destroy colony MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "Timothy C. Eisele" wrote: > According to the Merck Index, fluvalinate has the empirical formula: > > C H ClF N O > 26 22 3 2 3 From http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/fluoxetine.htm Quote with editing to shorten it: Fluoxetine hydrochloride is an antidepressant for oral administration;... It is designated (±)-N-methyl-3-phenyl-3-[(a,a,a-trifluoro-p-tolyl)-oxy]propylamine hydrochloride and has the empirical formula of C17H18F3NO•HCl. Its molecular weight is 345.79.... Each Prozac Pulvule contains fluoxetine hydrochloride equivalent to 10 mg (32.3 mmol) or 20 mg (64.7 mmol) of fluoxetine. Unquote It is administered orally. It is the main ingredient in Prozac. Just having CL or F in a chemical does not mean it is harmful. Salt, NaCl is essential for life and most of us brush and usually swallow a little Fl every morning. HCl is resident in every one of our stomachs. I cannot find it as an ingredient of Apistan. If it is, and since it is an antidepressant (prozac), maybe that is why beekeepers and their Apistan treated bees are so cheerful. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:11:08 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Dr. Pedro P Rodriguez" Subject: Re: Varroa, open mesh floors and slippery feet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good morning to all. Word of wisdom. Beware of scientific work translated via a machine. I have been horrified when reading "machine" translated text. In some cases the text has been entirely thrown out of context. I think that translators are useful for those who already know the language and may want to save time but with the safeguard of editing the translated material. Languages are complicated, especially when idioms are utilized in the text. i. e. grass roots knowledge to knowledge about grass I am afraid that "machine" translated material would add more controversy to FGMO than there is already on the net. Suggestion: go to beesource.com for updates. If in doubt please write to: dronebee@pilot.infi.net dronebee@jazzfree.com Best regards Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:24:30 -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: Chemical to destroy colony MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "W. Allen Dick" wrote: > Nonetheless, I have not been easily able to find information on the actual > structure of the tau-fluvalinate molecule which is -- AFAI -- the major > active ingredient in Apistan®. For the chemical composition: http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/tau-fluvalinate.html A writeup as a pesticide residue on crops is at http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/insect-mite/propetamphos-zetacyperm/tau-fluvalinate/prop-pest-tol-taufluval.html Part of which is quoted with editing: A chronic dietary exposure analysis was performed for tau- fluvalinate using a reference dose (RfD) of 0.01 mg/kg-bwt/day based on a no-observable effect level (NOEL) of 1.0 mg/kg- bwt/day from a 2-year rat feeding study with an uncertainty factor of 100. The end point effect of concern was decreased body weight gain in both sexes. The Theoretical Maximum Residue Contribution (TMRC) from established tolerances utilizes 1.6% of the RfD for the U.S. population and 7.0% of the RfD for the subpopulation most highly exposed, non-nursing infants (<1 yr)..... EPA concludes that the chronic dietary risk of tau- fluvalinate, as estimated by the dietary risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern. Unquote This is for fluvalinate that is residual on foods consumed by the public. The danger as a strip in a hive properly handled seeem to be quite less. It would be interesting to see what the residual levels are in wax and how they compare to the levels set by the EPA as safe. If there ever is a fluvalinate scare, it would help if it was below the standards set by the EPA. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:13:16 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Dr. Pedro P Rodriguez" Subject: Re: Queenless Behavior MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello to all. Yes, queens may drift, especially when there are an abundance of hives in the site. Also, in areas where predator birds are abundant, as is the case in Spain, many queens do not return from their mating flights, hence one must always be prepared for that eventuality. Careful periodic checks is the only way to know. Good luck. Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:23:28 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Varroa, open mesh floors and slippery feet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Dr. Pedro P Rodriguez" wrote: > Suggestion: go to beesource.com for updates. If in doubt please > write to: > dronebee@pilot.infi.net > dronebee@jazzfree.com I agree that it is less than perfect, so could someone post to the BeeL when the articles are available and provide the link? Would be appreciated. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:02:16 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Dr. Pedro P Rodriguez" Subject: Re: Espacio apicola e-mail address Comments: To: Espacio Apicola MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good morning to all. For those of you who may wish to contact the editor of the Spanish Beekeeping magazine, Espacio Apicola, the correct e-mail address is: apicola@apicultura.com.ar ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:12:12 -0400 Reply-To: bees@oldmoose.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Glen Glater Subject: more on neighbors MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit OK, so I've lost the attitude, and I'm prepared to move them. Why? Well, because of your excellent advice, of course! That, and the fact that the Department of Health stopped by today to tell me that bees are considered farm animals, and as such need to be permitted by the town. I need to file an application. Among the things that they consider are responses from abuttors and acreage. They "look for" an acre. Is 5500 ft2 an acre? I think not... So, I'll go through the application process, and perhaps that will get me through the summer. Then, with my attitude hidden, I'll have to move my bees. Grrrrrrr...... --glen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 03:41:50 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Midnitebee Subject: redesign web page MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings! FWIW-We are in the process of redesigning our web page. The format will be in a Flash/HTML style. If you arrive at our web page and receive a "warning" message,this probably means that you need to download the "Flash" attachment. Flash/Shockwave is a free download, just follow the instructions on your browser. Regards, Herb/Norma 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 Betty's Driftwood Santa Site http://pages.ivillage.com/santasite/index.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:10:30 -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: queen banks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > Are we, as beekeepers, convinced that in order to keep queens banked the > surrounding bees must be queenless? Has anyone tried otherwise? I have set up banks in queenright colonies simply by placing the cages above a queen excluder. Noticed no ill effects. However, Gus Rouse (Kona Queens) scolded me severely (I exagerate) over the practice. On his advise I set up the queenless nuc, which he said is the ONLY correct way to do it. I have had success both ways. However, I rarely bank queens for very long (over two weeks). I try to get them into colonies or at lease a nuc ASAP. I suspect queenless banks are optimal, but queenright banks work. Aaron ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:01:50 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: queen banks Are we, as beekeepers, convinced that in order to keep queens banked the surrounding bees must be queenless? Has anyone tried otherwise? I know one beekeeper who claims that the "queenless" part is in the old wives tale category and it doesn't make a difference! He says the workers will feed banked queens just fine. He does, however, suggest a double row of wire separation as otherwise the workers may bite at the pads on the bottom of the queen feet. Any thoughts or experience? Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner of Ross Rounds, manufacturer of comb honey equipment for beekeepers and Sundance pollen traps. http://www.rossrounds.com Lloyd@rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 19:52:26 -0400 Reply-To: mpalmer@together.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: michael palmer Subject: Re: queen banks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I use the excluder method. What is Gus's objection to it? Aaron Morris wrote: I have set up banks in queenright colonies simply by placing the cages above > a queen excluder. Noticed no ill effects. However, Gus Rouse (Kona Queens) > > scolded me severely (I exagerate) over the practice. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 19:35:31 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: tests: successes and failures MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, I have just got off the phone with Maurice Arndt the inventer of the Better Way Wax Melter and the vinegar fogger machine. Maurice called after talking to the New Zealand beekeeper I had given his phone number to. Because Bee-L is like publishing a book. Done by all of us. I always want information correct. Maurice says he does and has kept bees in Iowa for years. I misunderstood him when we talked years ago about not being a beekeeper. As I said in the original post Maurice and I have never met but talked on the phone on two different ocassions. His inventions are items he feels the industry needs. He uses the vinegar machine himself with great results. Maurice says he has many satisfied customers. Maurice has never seen Bee-L and I have encouraged Maurice to join. I sincerely hope he will. Maybe Maurice is joining tonight. Treat Maurice with respect and I am sure he will contribute to Bee-L. I am proud of the way Bee-L has treated Dr. R. inventer of the FGMO fogger. Both these people are trying to fight the worst pest beekeeping has ever seen VARROA. Maurice says his home is not modest. I apologise for the word modest. One never knows what word to use to describe anothers dwelling and shop. Maurice says he is starting to advertise in *Bee Culture* magazine instead of the American Bee Journal. About all the news I have got. Hopefully Maurice will answer a few of the past weeks Bee-L posts concerning his machine. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:29:56 EDT 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: queen banks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lloyd and Arron, I have always thought of a double screen as one of the most useful tools in an apiary, but none of the major bee supply houses sold them. A few years ago, I mentioned this to Steve Forrest of Brushy Mountain Bee Farm and right away he started building real fancy ones for sale. I have kept queen banks OVER a double screen for years with an upper entrance to that body. For emergency use, I have kept queens banked for as long as 2 months with no problems. I don't know whether you want to call this a queenrite colony or not, because a laying queen is working below, but only the caged queens are above and the double screen is between them. Although the only bees working up in the super area are forager bees, and not nest bees, they seem to feed the queens fine. Have I given you any thoughts? George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:23:34 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Rick and Kathy Subject: Re: queen banks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Aaron Morris wrote: > I have set up banks in queenright colonies simply by placing the cages above > a queen excluder. Noticed no ill effects. However, Gus Rouse (Kona Queens) > > scolded me severely (I exagerate) over the practice. On his advise I set up > the > queenless nuc, which he said is the ONLY correct way to do it. > > I have had success both ways. However, I rarely bank queens for very long > (over two weeks). I try to get them into colonies or at lease a nuc ASAP. I once wintered several (5) queens above a queen excluder in a queen-right colony. The queens weren't worth much at the end of the winter- having been confined for that long, but we had some "left-over" queens and I wanted to see if it could be done. I suspect that in that instance, a colony that wasn't queen-right would have failed miserably. Guess like everything in beekeeping, there are pros and cons to each method... Kathy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 19:50:22 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Robert T. Dykes" Subject: Re: Two brood chambers... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Digger" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 6:13 PM Subject: Two brood chambers... > I'm a hobbyist, and fairly new to beekeeping. Two > weeks ago I added a second brood chamber to my only > hive. > There's alot of burr comb between the upper and lower > brood chambers. I started to clean it up, but realized > I was also destroying eggs, larvae, and brood, so I > stopped. Managing the hive kinda requires removing the > burr comb, yes? Shall I press on, removing that burr > comb, and unhatched bees be damned??? > > Richard As most of the brood found between the two hive bodies is mostly drone it's a matter of opinion as to whether or not that is good. If you want to manage the hive then you have to break that barrier of brood every time that you remove the upper brood chamber, usually just lifting a frame out has the same result. Now this brings us to the "why?" of all this added work and aggravation. Odds are that you bought a commercial hive or if you made your own you either used another hive as a pattern or you read somewhere that the industry norm is 9-5/8". Let me show you and hopefully a lot of other people that some American beekeeping suppliers have been lying to us for a good many years. Back suppliers! Don't take this personal but it's a sad truth to think about. Fact #1: A standard shallow honey super is 5-11/16" high with a 5-3/8" high end bar with a resultant bee space of 5/16". Fact #2: A medium measures 6-5/8" with a 6-1/4" end bar, bee space 3/8". Fact #3: A deep from most manafacturers is 9-5/8" deep with 9-1/8" end bars being the norm from all suppliers that I know of. Also most suppliers have their end bar lugs thinned down to 3/8". This gives a bee space of 1/2"; duh, we just violated proper bee space. Just set a table saw rip fence to 9-1/2" and run that thing across the saw (watch for curved nails or you'll ruin that blade) and solve all of that scraping every time that you seperate the brood chambers. Any more of those store bought ones you can rerip them to 9-1/2" before assembly. That extra 1/8" should be removed from the bottom of the board. Please, don't take my writing style personally but I just felt like poking fun at a common question to a common problem. If all of this is confusing to anyone then just look at the blueprints for most "British" hives, there they can choose between top and bottom spacing. > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 12:55:36 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: Re: Chemical composition of fluvalinate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Bill Truesdell wrote: >Just having CL or F in a chemical does not mean it is harmful. Salt, >NaCl is essential for life and most of us brush and usually swallow a >little Fl every morning. HCl is resident in every one of our stomachs. The element chlorine is present in Bill's substances - salt, and aqueous hydrochloric acid in most people's stomach - in the chemical form of the CHLORIDE ion. The giants Davy & Faraday realised this is an extremely different thing from that same element chlorine in other forms. The slightly lesser giant Svante Arrhenius invented the concept 'ion'; at the end of his oral defence of his doctoral thesis at the U of Uppsala, the number of cannon fired at the gate - 1 - was to signal the minimum pass grade, but ions have been beyond doubt for all my life and are always very different from the uncharged forms of the element in question. One of the few good contributions by Barry Commoner was his early essay pointing out that chlorine atoms BONDED TO CARBON are very rare in nature (and when they do occur naturally, they strongly tend have unusually powerful properties, e.g. as bactericides), so it would appear to be a bad idea to spread around vast amounts of organochlorines as has been done since WW2. The same is even more true of the other halogens - the elements in the same group of the periodic table as chlorine. Fluorine bonded to carbon is a very different type of chemical than the fluoride ion as added to some toothpaste, and scarcely occurs in nature. It has unpredictable effects - e.g. the drug fluoxetine as outlined by Bill. My mentioning that by a typo months ago should cause no more trouble, but it is an interesting case of biological effect from an organofluorine compound. The main problem with organochlorine compounds, and organohalogen compounds generally, is that they tend to accumulate in organisms. There are few natural detoxication mechanisms that can handle them, and few enzymes can metabolize organohalogens. They notoriously tend to accumulate, often in fatty tissues. When they trickle back out, e.g. in a famine as fat stores are mobilized, they tend to cause a large variety of biological harm. All this has been in Time-Life books for a couple decades; is in every textbook of applied ecology; yet is ignored by any who try to judge the toxicity of an organic compound by comparing with inorganic ions. (Actually, the fluoride ion is about as toxic as the forms of arsenic that have been used as poisons; and if you drink water with more than a few ppm F- (as do millions of poor people in parts of India & China) you are liable to malformed bones & teeth; fluoride ion is far from harmless.) The total experience with sythetic organochlorine compounds has been worrying. The ecological fate of fluvalinate has not been studied much, and its effects on bees should have been more studied before it was put into commerce. Research on less toxic varroacides should be a far higher priority. Why would anyone disagree with that? R - Robt Mann consultant ecologist P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:07:55 -0400 Reply-To: "Keith B. Forsyth" Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Keith B. Forsyth" Organization: KEITH B.FORSYTH Subject: Mark your Calender Michigan/Ontario Joint Summer Meeeting July 21-28, 2001 Comments: To: BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michigan/Ontario Summer Meeting The Ontario (OBA) and Michigan State Beekeepers' Associations will have a joint meeting July 27-28 in Sarnia,Ontario. This meeting will be held at the Ramada Hotel & Convention Centre, call 1-800-265-7522 or (519) 542-7741 for reservations and ask for the OBA special rate of 92.00 CDN. As this is the busy tourist season make your room reservations early. Speakers include: Dr. Jeff Pettis USDA-ARS, Dr. Zachary Huang; Michigan State University, Dr. John Harbo USDA-ARS, Dr. Medhat Nasr, Rutgers University New Jersey,Barry Davies Ontario Buckfast Breeder, and Doug McRory, Provincial Apiarist, OMAFRA. On Friday evening there will be a banquet, entertainment and silent auction. On Saturday there will be a queen auction, speakers and a tour one of Ontario's modern honey houses at Munro Honey of Alvinston . For more information contact Patricia Westlake, OBA Business Co-ordinator; (519) 565-2622, (519) 565-5452 fax, email info@ontariobee.com or check the OBA website www.ontariobee.com Why not plan a family vacation around this event? Sarnia is located at the conjunction of Lake Huron and the St. Clair River. Call 1-800-265-0316 or visit www.tourism-sarnia-lambton.com for tourist information. All are welcome. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:33:27 -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: Chemical composition of fluvalinate In-Reply-To: <200106070124.f571OqP12251@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you for taking the time to explain why fluorine and other halides can have different effects depending on how they are bonded. > Fluorine bonded to > carbon is a very different type of chemical than the fluoride ion as added > to some toothpaste, and scarcely occurs in nature. It has unpredictable > effects - e.g. the drug fluoxetine as outlined by Bill. My mentioning > that by a typo months ago should cause no more trouble, but it is an > interesting case of biological effect from an organofluorine compound. I'm no chemist, but I gathered -- perhaps incorrectly -- from your above discussion, that the presence of fluorine and the bond in the Prozac case, and the presence of fluorine and the bond in the fluvalinate example, were similar -- yet my understanding is that fluoxetine can be consumed safely and beneficially (in recommended small doses) while fluvalinate should be considered harmful in any amount. If this is true, how does the presence of fluorine and that type of bond make fluvalinate suspect as a more dangerous toxin than similar molecules that lack that particular feature. I understood you to be saying that one feature is the major difference between fluvalinate and the natural pyrethroids? > (Actually, the fluoride ion is about as toxic as the forms of arsenic that > have been used as poisons; and if you drink water with more than a few ppm > F- (as do millions of poor people in parts of India & China) you are liable > to malformed bones & teeth; fluoride ion is far from harmless.) Interestingly Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk discussed here on BEE-L some time back the toxic effects of fluorine -- as it occurs in water supplies -- on honey bees. This was of great interest to me since our water supply locally is apparently at or slightly above the maximum Alberta standard for human consumption by children (2ppm) and we were considering mixing sugar with it for bee feed. Jerry indicated that he believes fluorine, for some reason builds up in bees and results in uneconomic performance. Here are links to the original articles: http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9504&L=bee-l&P=R10749 http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9504&L=bee-l&P=R11008 > The total experience with synthetic organochlorine compounds has > been worrying. The ecological fate of fluvalinate has not been studied > much, and its effects on bees should have been more studied before it was > put into commerce. Research on less toxic varroacides should be a far > higher priority. Why would anyone disagree with that? I think as beekeepers, we all wince when we use *any* insecticide or miticide in our hives and any effort to reduce or eliminate their use is to be applauded. allen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 12:53:41 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lucinda Sewell Subject: Queen Banks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (In)Experience, This Spring I put 3 queens in cages with attendants in a super above an excluder in a queenright colony. I checked the next day and they were ok. 7 days later I had 3 dead queens. Attendants were ok. Don't care who says it works, I won't be doing it again. I bet it's easier with a failing 'right' queen below. Funny how different everything is for everybody. Maybe that's why there's so much written. An elderly beekeeper told me to read one book, or else I'd go mad. Wonder what he would think of internet lists and online translators :-). I think I'm going to print "Beekeeping is very simple" By Allen Dick on www.beesource.com. (Under POV I think) and read that whenever I get full of questions or ideas... John Sewell (Mad long before bees) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 08:35:03 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "BOGANSKY,RONALD J." Subject: Queen Banks and Oddities MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, A few years back I read on the list, I believe it was post by Allen, about banking queens above a queen excluder in a queenright colony. (Aaron, I would also be interested in hearing why you were told this was bad.) Up until then it never occurred to me that you could do this. I thought only a queenless set up would work, so that is what I used. Since then I have set up banks on queenright colonies and never had a problem. I try not to keep them banked for longer than two weeks, but last year I lost count and left one for probably closer to a month. She was fine. This year, as I previously mentioned, I had high winter losses. When the queens arrived I had more than I really needed so banking was essential. For no particular reason, other than convenience, I chose a colony that was that was started from a package a few weeks earlier for the bank. It worked fine as all queens were successfully stored. A few interesting things happened along the way. First I made a very stupid mistake. It was the end of the day when I set up the bank I wasn't thinking when I placed the caged queens above the excluder. I use an excluder with an Imire Shim above it for added space around the cages. About two days later while as I lay bed I remembered I did not block the candy side of the cage. I envisioned a number of new queens being released and then killed. The next morning I checked and found very little activity around the sugar. Maybe if this was a strong colony rather than a package the outcome would have been different. There were some other oddities that occurred. When I requeen colonies, unless the colony has a real problem, i.e. aggressive, I don't like to kill the queen. I guess I am getting soft, but I just have a problem killing queens. I have a few ways around this. I either pull the old queen and a frame or two and start a nuc, or I set up a two queen colony and eventually let the bees decide. Invariably it runs about +80% that the new queen is ultimately chosen. If I start the nuc using the old queen and the new queen is not accepted I still have a back up. This year I just had too many queens so I couldn't do this. I took a few of the old queens and put them in cages and added them to the bank along with the other queens that were already there. A few days later I checked to find them dead yet the other queens were still being cared for. I am sure someone will have an explanation as to why they were not cared for. Interestingly though, a few years ago while requeening a colony I placed the old queen in a cage (not really knowing what I was going to do with her but I still have that problem with killing queens) without attendants. I placed the cage on the ground in the shade some distance away from the colony and promptly forgot about her as I continued my work. A few days later I was walking around the area and noticed a small cluster of bees on the ground. Sure enough it was the queen, alive and well, being attended out in the open. I then checked the colony she came from to find the new queen had been released and was already doing her job. I know this is getting long winded but I have one more oddity. While handling some of the old queens one got away from me when I was caging her. I was standing over the colony that I was going to set up as the queen bank. I dropped her on the inner cover. She made a mad dash through the cover hole and went right down into the colony. I thought, oh well she is done. A few days later I checked and to my surprise found her laying eggs on a frame. Sure enough four frames over I found the original queen also laying, happy as she could be. All this just proves to me, once again, the bees don't read the books and just maybe in another 40 years I will have learned enough to say I know a little about them. Take care, Ron Bogansky Kutztown, (eastern) PA, USA + ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 08:38:10 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Chinese Evodia Tree A few weeks ago someone asked for a source for this wonderful honey plant. I just learned that Connie Bright has 2-3 year old seedlings that have been over-wintered in pots (the best kind) for sale. Three for $8.95, including shipping. (Wow!) Send inquiries to Connie Bright, Box 32, Interlaken, NY 14847. I have no financial or other interest in her venture. Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner of Ross Rounds, manufacturer of comb honey equipment for beekeepers and Sundance pollen traps. http://www.rossrounds.com Lloyd@rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 08:31:03 -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: queen banks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi George, > I have always thought of a double screen as one of the most useful tools in > an apiary, but none of the major bee supply houses sold them. Betterbee has had them for as long as I can remember (which sometimes isn't even yesterday ;-). > I have kept queen banks OVER a double screen for years with an upper entrance > to that body. So where do the attendants for the caged queens come from? Above a queen excluder the attendants come through the excluder while the aueen of the colony stays below. With a double screen (correctly called a Snelgrove board) nothing came get through. I'm confused. Cheers, Aaron ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 08:23:43 -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: queen banks Comments: cc: michael palmer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > I use the excluder method. What is Gus's objection to it? As a breeder and seller of many queens, Gus advises against placing queens in queenright colonies. My experience has been "no problem". Gus has a thousandfold greater experience to base his recommendation. If/When a customer loses a number of queens banked in a queenright colony, they are inclined to blame the breeder and request replacement of the queens. I have never had a problem banking in queenright colonies. Gus has had MANY requests to replace queens that customers lost in banks set up in queenright colonies. He strongly advises against the practice. I took Gus' word and followed his advice and set up my last two banks in queenless nucs. I described the problems with the first queenless bank yesterday. The second bank is also causing me problems. There were no problems with the queens in the bank, but both times when I was done with the bank I tried to introduce a single queen (the last in the bank) to make the queenless bank a queenright nucleus colony. On my second bank, I checked two days ago and the queen had been released and way laying. I checked yesterday, the queen is gone and there were more than a few but less than a lot of capped emergency queen cells. I don't know what to make of this. I've speculated on the causes of problems with my first bank (they raised a queen when I wasn't paying attention), but I'm puzzled by this second bank. It could possible be that the queen was a dud in the first place, the bees recognized it and are offed her. It's possible I injured the queen during inspection, although I'd like to think not. It might be too many manipulations in too short a time. All this banking and nucing and splitting is taking place in the yard where I'm being evicted by my Village government with a deadline next week. I'm splitting hives and moving nucs and rushing things a bit to make the deadline. But I'm beginning to wonder if there's some sort of taboo about introducing a queen to a colony that had become used to having many? Might there be something going on in the process of converting a queenless bank to a queenright nucleus that makes it a trickier task that I think it should be? Based on my sample size I can't make valid guesstimates. Anyone been there, done that? Aaron Morris - thinking queens in the bank are worth 3 in a nuc! Aaron Morris wrote: I have set up banks in queenright colonies simply by placing the cages above > a queen excluder. Noticed no ill effects. However, Gus Rouse (Kona Queens) > > scolded me severely (I exagerate) over the practice. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 07:52:52 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: A mini apologetic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is sort of an apology as well as a justification for my continuing questioning of different mite control techniques posted on the BeeL. I have been the editor of the Maine State Beekeepers newsletter. Since mite control is probably the hottest topic in beekeeping circles, I wanted to keep our State Beekeepers current on what works and what does not. I was and am critical on word of mouth or single point of information ideas. I have seen too many hot ideas that sounded perfectly rational turn bust when tested independently. Before I buy most anything I like to check Consumer Reports as well as talk to others who have the item. In like vein, I like to act as the Consumer Reports of Beekeeping for the Maine readers, so I want as much info as possible, including my own quasi-scientific tests before I recommend anything. I probably have been too insistent in some cases, and for that I apologize. But I also appreciate those who came back rationally and dispassionately with point by point answers to my questions. Sometimes, I was brushed off. And often, in those cases, I received e-mail from those who tried the technique and suffered very bad results. They did not want to post to the list for fear of how they would be treated. Which leads me to my final point. After six years, I am turning over the editorship of the Bee Line. Anything new will be for me to test on my own, as I have in the past. I have told the new editors (took two to replace me :) about the wealth of info on the BeeL. Now I can sit back and mellow out. I will try to keep the requests for independent tests to a minimum. It will take some time, but I will try. Bill Truesdell (mellow as he chews on an Apistan strip) Bath, ME (I said mellow. I retain the right to be irreverent.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 07:35:50 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Charles Frederic Andros Subject: Robinia pseudoacacia! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Beekeepers, Hi! It was looking pretty dismal for the bees what with all the = rain and cold weather in the Northeast lately, with dandelions = (Taraxacum officinale), mustard family (Cruciferae), and Tartarian = honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) washouts. Then I heard of some swarms, = and I got more optimistic, as swarms usually go out just before the = honeyflow! Now things have turned around and there is a nice Robinia = pseudoacacia (black locust) flow on in some areas. I measured a 6.8 kg. = (15 pound) gain for June 5+6. This is typical for a good locust flow in = my area, but it's been years since we had one! Also helping out is = glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), an introduced species from Europe = with tiny, creamy flowers that blooms for about 3 months, but is most = heavily worked in late-May and early-June. Often the daily gains = increase as raspberries (Rubus spp.) kick in. Blackberries (Rubus spp.) = are just starting, according to my pollen traps. Yesterday I noticed = that staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina) is budding up nicely, as is basswood = (Tilia americana). It looks like the good weather will allow the bees good foraging for = a good stretch, which will push them up into the supers. Until a couple = of days ago, only one or two of my 2-queen colonies had stored any honey = of note in the supers. Pollen production is on the increase, and it is = very tasty this time of year. Mites are also being trapped with the = pollen, and are frozen daily with the pollen! Brood nests are expanding again after shrinking a bit during the = poor weather. You have probably heard of streaming audio and video. = Reverse your hives and you will see streaming brood! If you know what = this means, you are becoming a beekeeper! The Russian queens I've = installed this year are taking well and laying out with nice patterns. = This is very different from the last few years queens. They must be = doing something right in California! If you have bees now, I would like to know how they are doing in = your area. Keep on beeing, Charles Frederic Andros Linden Apiaries since 1973 Former NH/VT Apiary Inspector '78-'89 18 McLean Road POB 165 Walpole, NH 03608-0165 603-756-9056 lindena@sover.net Residence: Latitude 43=B0 04' 53" North, Longitude 72=B0 21' 13" West, = Elevation 363 meters=20 Keeper of 43 two-queen colonies for unheated honey, fresh-frozen pollen, = propolis tincture, Bee Complex facial, pollination, nuclei, beeswax, = candles, apitherapy, workshops, and supplies "Learn, experiment, innovate, educate!"=20 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 07:02:52 -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: Chemical composition of fluvalinate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Mann wrote: > One of the few good contributions by Barry Commoner was his early > essay pointing out that chlorine atoms BONDED TO CARBON are very rare in > nature (and when they do occur naturally, they strongly tend have unusually > powerful properties, e.g. as bactericides), so it would appear to be a bad > idea to spread around vast amounts of organochlorines as has been done > since WW2. You can have perfectly benign elements that when combined are killers and vice versa. You can eat elemental carbon and breath air but would not promote the drinking of kerosene. As you noted, all chlorine associated with organic compounds do not need to be bound to carbon. So the structure is important. Loads of them are HCl, or chlorides. Some like FluoxetineHCl are ingested. In addition, the harmful effects may be there when in quantity but may be beneficial in lesser amounts, like fluorides and chlorides, as you pointed out. Another example is drinking sea water to stay alive. Some vitamins, essential to life, can be toxic in quantity. The discussion was on Fluoxetine as an ingredient of Apistan, and I am not sure that has been answered yet. I do share your concern with all organo-halogen pesticides and wish we had SMR/varroa resistant bees today. Getting way off topic here. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:30:48 -0400 Reply-To: "Keith B. Forsyth" Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Keith B. Forsyth" Organization: KEITH B.FORSYTH Subject: Mark your calendar Michigan/Ontario Joint Summer Meeting, July 27-28, 2001 Comments: To: BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michigan/Ontario Summer Meeting The Ontario (OBA) and Michigan State Beekeepers' Associations will have a joint meeting July 27-28 in Sarnia,Ontario. This meeting will be held at the Ramada Hotel & Convention Centre, call 1-800-265-7522 or (519) 542-7741 for reservations and ask for the OBA special rate of 92.00 CDN. As this is the busy tourist season make your room reservations early. Speakers include: Dr. Jeff Pettis USDA-ARS, Dr. Zachary Huang; Michigan State University, Dr. John Harbo USDA-ARS, Barry Davies Ontario Buckfast Breeder, Dr. Medhat Nasr, Rutgers University New Jersey and Doug McRory, Provincial Apiarist, OMAFRA. On Friday evening there will be a banquet, entertainment and silent auction. On Saturday there will be a queen auction, speakers, and a tour of one of Ontario's modern honey houses at Munro Honey of Alvinston . For more information contact Patricia Westlake, OBA Business Co-ordinator; (519) 565-2622, (519) 565-5452 fax, email info@ontariobee.com or check the OBA website www.ontariobee.com Why not plan a family vacation around this event? Sarnia is located at the conjunction of Lake Huron and the St. Clair River. Call 1-800-265-0316 or visit www.tourism-sarnia-lambton.com for tourist information. All are welcome. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:34:20 -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: A mini apologetic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Bill & All, Bill wrote: > This is sort of an apology as well as a justification for my continuing > questioning of different mite control techniques posted on the BeeL. I see no need for a apology for questioning any method posted on Bee-L. The best discussions I have seen on Bee-L were the result of questioning of a post. I will always question a post I believe is incorrect or maybe needs further discussion. Even our most heated discussions fade away after a few days. By then both sides of the discussion have voiced their opinions and presented their aurguments for or against the subject. THEN: The subject can be brought back from the archives at a later date and discussed again. I see very little of this happening so that tells me very few Bee-L people have actually read all the archives. I went back ten years and read from the start when I joined Bee-L. The first years were very simplistic compared to today. Posts presented to Bee-L receive a higher level of scrutiny than any bee list in the world. A comment for new beekeepers I would add is when you ask a question on Bee-L for which many posts already exist you can expect a light response. example: Which race of bee is best? If you ask about the swarming behavior of say Carniolans then you will get a better response and any new information. One way to be sure your Bee-L post gets a response is to add the fact you have allready searched the archives and can not find information. Those posts will get a response and shouldn't be left unanswered . example: When reading a book and a question is raised the subject is addressed. The veiws presented are only the viewpoint of the author but may be backed up by articles from scientific journals etc. Is not what we are doing on Bee-L similar? Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri Ps. Lurkers ( name for Bee-L ers which only read and delete) please join in once in awhile! I know there are lurkers better able to answer some of these tough beekeeping questions than I am! In looking at last months posts many went unanswered. Help out by answering to keep new beekeepers interested. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:44:49 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: queen banks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, A simple queen bank is the *Riteway* queen shipper from Mann Lake. These can be bought cheaply. If you live close to a commercial beekeeper he might have a used shipper he would give you. 1. make up sugar candy and stock shipper. 2. place queens you are unable to install in shipper. 3. shake bees from several frames of eggs & larva (less queen) into queen shipper box. It has been many years since I have had to bank queens. The last few years I have had the nucs made up and the queens installed within hours of delivery. In my opinion the longer the queens are caged the poorer the acceptance. Beekeeping is all about careful planning. Try a later shipping date or make nucs up early when the weather is better. You can allways cut out queen cells. . I do realize that weekend beekeepers need to bank queens when they arrive midweek. I know when my priority mail arrives and am sitting by the phone. This last spring one shipment was a day late as the Denver airport was closed due to a large snow. You can set your watch by my queen breeder. Queens were in great shape but I worried about the girls arrival. Rather than queen bank a better idea might be to make up more nucs and install the queens on a smaller amount of brood IF you have got enough equipment. example: one frame of brood instead of two or three. Add additional frames later. If cold weather install the queen on a single frame of brood between two frames of honey & pollen over a double screen on a strong colony. You can set these up the weekend before your queens arrive. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri Thinking "Get those girls laying as soon as possible!" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:22:08 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: queen banking Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi: I'd like to hear from the commercial queen/package producers on this one. I've seen several methods used by them, and most have strong opinions about what works and what doesn't. My own experience suggests that there isn't just one way of doing this, but there are things to avoid. Banking Queens: 1. Queenless Colony - often stated as the "proper" way to bank queens. Obvious advantage, the bees don't have a queen and presumably want to raise a new one. Also, the absence of an old queen in the box may reduce attack attempts on the banked queens. Obvious disadvantage, the queenless bank may not forage vigorously, and it appears that brood is needed or helps to stimulate care of the queens. So, if you want to keep the queens banked for any length of time, you may have to keep putting in frames of brood and young bees and stimulate the colony by feeding it. If you are like many of us, you get busy and this slides. Soon you have a queen bank with only a few old bees left to tend the queens, and eventually all of the queens are dead or in bad shape. 2. Queenright colony Advantage, the colony has brood, young bees, and should forage (weather and food resources permitting) without any help from the beekeeper. Disadvantage, you do want to keep the old queen away from the banked queens. Some use double screens (safest), many just toss in a queen excluder. Using both methods, we have at times had great success, and occassionally a complete failure - and it doesn't seem to be associated with the presence or absence of a free roaming queen. Logically, a queenless colony would seem to be more receptive of extra queens. Practically, they sometimes neglect them. Similarly, you may expect the workers or queen in a queen-right colony to attack the banked queens, but that seems to be rare - if the queens are separated by some space. 3. Queen cages and attendants I am convinced that this makes a difference. Get rid of the attendants - if nothing else, they die in the cage and make a mess. Use a cage with enough space for the queen to get away from the bees outside the cage and use a fine grid screen (or plastic mesh) so the bees can't chew on the queens. Regardless of claims to the contrary, I'm still getting damage to queens kept in some of the newer cages - the old wood blocks, expecially the larger ones, with a wire screen always worked - no queen damage. 4. Position - I've had better luck building a rack and inserting the queens down between two brood frames than placing the queens on an excluder or double screen between two hive boxes. 5. Eventually - the bank will deteriorate. Normally, the outermost queens in a row of banked queens will die first. Loss of the banked queens is rarely random, it starts from the end of the row or with the queen cages nearest to the outside of the hive box. This might be a consequence of our weather - cold nights, warm days. I suspect the attendants pull inward on cold nights, leaving the outer queen cages with no bee cover. 6. Biggest mistake that I've made - set up some nuc boxes for trials at a distant location. Had to have a viable, laying queen in every box. Soooo, I decided to bank a spare queen in each nuc. That is, each nuc had a free ranging, laying queen, and a banked queen. Well, the bees killed the second queen in every nuc - but not the caged queen! They killed their own queen. Apparently, they went with one queen per box - couldn't get to the caged queen, so they balled the one they could get at. Jerry Jerry J. Bromenshenk Research Professor The University of Montana-Missoula jjbmail@selway.umt.edu 406-243-5648 406-243-4184 http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 13:33:45 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mark Coldiron Subject: Dog House Hive Hello Everyone, I need some advice. A friend of mine called to say that her grandparent's house, which has been vacant for a couple of years, now has a colony of bees living in an old dog house in the back yard. She wanted to know if I could do something to get rid of the bees. I decided that, because the dog house was small and the bees had obviously been there for at least two years, I would take the dog house, bees and all, and add it to my apiary. The question is, how is the best way to get the bees out of the dog house and into a normal hive that I can work. Here's what I've done so far. After finding a suitable location in the apiary, I turned the dog house on its end so the door on top. Then placed a medium hive body with 8 frames of foundation and a frame feeder over the door with an Imirie Shim to go between the house and the hive body. On top I put a standard telescoping lid. But, how do I get them to move up into their new home so I can do away with the dog house? Mark (The Little/Coldiron Farm) If what you're doing seems too hard..., You're probably doing it wrong. :-)